le  Very  Rev,  M. 


•BS2665 
.L979LZ 


Luther  on  the 
His  Revolt 


A  criticism  of  Luther's  Lectures  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
given  at  Wittenberg  in  1515-1516. 


BY  , 

The  Very  Rev.  M.  J.  LAGRANGE,  O.  P. 

Editor  of  the  Revue  Biblique, 
Director  of  the  Ecole  Pratique  d'Etudes  Bibligues,  Jerusalem. 


TRANSLATED  BY 

The  Rev.  W.  S.  REILLY,  S.  S. 


THE   CATHEDRAL   LIBRARY   ASSOCIATION 

New  York 
1918 


NIHIL  OBSTAT 

E.R.DYER,  D.D. 

Censor  Deputatus 


Imprimatur 

J.  CARD.  GIBBONS 

Archiepiscopus  Baltimorensis 


Baltimorae,  die  24^^  Novembris,  1917. 


LUTHER  ON  THE  EVE   OF 
HIS  REVOLT 

INTRODUCTION 

The  official  birthday  of  the  Reformation 
has  been  fixed  as  the  31st  of  October,  1517, 
the  day  Luther  posted  upon  the  door  of  the 
University  Church  at  Wittenberg  the  ninety- 
five  theses  In  which  he  bade  defiance  to  preach- 
ers of  Indulgences  in  Germany.  It  was  re- 
solved, before  the  war  into  which  Europe  has 
been  plunged,  to  celebrate  with  great  solem- 
nity the  four  hundredth  anniversary  of  this 
event. 

The  view  that  Luther's  challenge  had  great 
significance  was  held  by  Bossuet.  That  incom- 
parable controversialist  did  not  see  in  Luther's 
action  more  than  a  rather  irresolute  first  step, 
a  denunciation  of  an  Isolated  abuse :  "From 
abuses  he  passed  to  the  thing  itself."  The 
Lutheran  system  would  have  grown  only  in- 
sensibly and  according  to  the  requirements  of 
controversy :  "However,  one  matter  led  him 
to  another.  As  the  doctrine  of  justification 
and  of  the  efficacy  of  the  Sacraments  was 
closely  connected  with  that  of  indulgences, 
Luther  turned  upon  these  two  articles ;  and 
this  controversy  soon  became  the  more  im- 
1 


2  Introduction 


portant."  ^  Working  on  this  assumption, 
Bossuet  undertakes  the  difficult  task  of  follow- 
ing Luther  in  his  first  movements,  which  he 
represents  as  sometimes  bold,  sometimes  timid. 
His  admirable  book,  so  full  of  facts,  so  vig- 
orous and  serene  in  its  reasoning,  is,  at  the 
beginning,  occupied  with  the  discussion  of 
petty  quarrels.  It  is  like  the  first  flappings 
of  the  wings  of  the  eagle  which  is  starting 
upon  its  flight. 

It  has  been  shown  recently  that  Bossuet's 
view  about  the  beginnings  of  Lutheranism  was 
entirely  wrong.  Long  before  the  incident  of 
October  31,  1517,  Luther  was  already  in  full 
possession  of  his  theological  system.  If  all 
the  details  were  not  formulated,  the  princi- 
ples had  been  laid  down  clearly  and  with 
assurance.  The  monk  had  his  doctrine  and 
his  plan  of  reform.  It  is  now  clear  that  the 
new  religion  is  not  the  result  of  circum- 
stances. 

The  first  historian  to  understand  and  to 
analyze  the  state  of  mind  of  Luther  on  the 
eve  of  the  Reformation  was  an  Austrian  Do- 
minican, Father  Denifle,  in  his  study  on  the 
beginnings  of  Lutheranism,  as  they  are  seen 
in  the  original  documents.^ 

1  Eistoire  cles  Variations  des  Eglises  Protestantes, 
Book  1. 

2  Luther  und  Luthertum  in  der  ersten  Enticickel- 
ung  quellenmassig  dargestellt. 

The  first  part  of  this  work  was  revised  by  the 
author  himself    (1904).     Tlie  second   appeared  after 


Introduction 


The  document  which  proved  to  be  of  most 
value  was  a  manuscript  of  the  Commentary 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  which  Luther, 
as  professor  of  exegesis  at  Wittenberg,  had 
composed  in  1515-1516.  We  have  the  pre- 
cise date,  because  the  Vulgate  text  of  the 
Epistle  which  he  annotated  was  printed  in 
1515,  and  we  know  that  the  lectures  ended  in 
October,  1516,  just  one^year  before  the  pub- 
lication of  the  theses  on  indulgences.  We 
owe  the  discovery  of  this  important  document 
to  Mr.  Johannes  Ficker,  who,  in  his  search 
for  manuscripts  bearing  on  the  beginning  of 
the  Reformation,  found,  first,  a  copy  of  the 
Commentary  in  the  archives  of  the  Vatican 
Library  at  Rome,  and  then  the  original  itself, 
in  the  handwriting  of  Luther,  carefully  pre- 
served— unread — in  a  glass  case  of  the  Rojal 
Library  of  Berlin.  German  Protestants, 
who  have  raised  to  the  glory  of  the  Re- 
former a  veritable  monument  of  books  and 
pamphlets,  had  overlooked  the  only  abso- 
lutely reliable  source  of  information  concern- 
ing the  thought  of  Luther  when  that  thought 
was  ripening  into  Lutheranism.  Was  such 
an  oversight  due  to  the  fact  that  intellectual 
curiosity    about   the    master's    activity    as    a 

his  death  (June  10,  1905),  edited  by  Father 
Weiss,  0.  P.  (1906).  Circumstances  having  pre- 
vented access  to  the  original,  we  shall  cite  from 
the  French  translation,  enriched  by  careful  notes, 
of  the  Rev.  J.  Paqui>r,  LL.D.,  Luther  et  le  Luther- 
anisme,  Paris,  Picard,  4  vols.,  1910-1913. 


Introduction 


monk  had  been  satisfied  by  his  own  stories 
about  his  hfe  in  the  cloister?  Did  they  take 
seriously  his  claim  to  be  divinely  inspired? 
The  details  of  Ticker's  discovery  are  given, 
too  sparingly,  in  his  edition  of  the  Berlin 
manuscript,^  from  which  we  shall  quote  in 
the  present  study. 

Father  Denifle  was  not  the  man  to  await 
the  publication  of  the  Berlin  text.  With  his 
incomparable  mastery  of  paleography,  he  set 
to  work  with  the  Roman  copy.  He  realized 
at  a  glance  the  importance  of  the  discovery 
of  this  book  and  it  was  not  hard  for  such  a 
keen  theologian  and  historian,  so  admi- 
rably informed  concerning  the  intellectual 
life  of  the  Middle  Ages,  to  realize  that  there 
was  in  this  Commentary  the  essence  of  all  the 
errors  which  Luther  was  afterward  to  pro- 
fess. Variations  might  appear,  called  forth 
by  polemics,  but  they  would  not  fundamen- 
tally alter  the  system  which  the  Augustinian 
monk  expounded  a  year  before  his  revolt. 
The  long  extracts  which  Father  Denifle  gives 
from  the  Commentary^  and  the  rigorous 
analysis  to  which  he  submits  them,  are  the 
most  interesting  features  of  his  great  work 
on  Luther  and  Lutheranism. 

This   work   has   shown   conclusively,   as  is 

1  Anfdnge  reformatoriscJier  Bihelauslegung,  he- 
raiisgehen  von  Johannes  Ficker.  1.  Band:  Luther^s 
Vorlesung  iiher  den  Romerbrief,  1515-1516.  I  Teil: 
Die  Glosse,  in  8^  CIV— 161  pp.  II  Teil:  Die  ficlwlien, 
1-346  pp.,  Leipzig,  1908. 


Introduction 


conceded  by  more  than  one  of  the  many  op- 
ponents Father  Denifle  stirred  up,  that 
Luther,  when  he  made  his  attack  on  Cathohc 
theology,  had  no  knowledge  of  the  great 
scholastics,  including  St.  Thomas  Aquinas. 
His  theological  reading  had  not  extended  be- 
yond the  disciples  of  Occam  ;  Gabriel  Biel  had 
been  his  most  familiar  author. 

A  second  still  more  important  point  made 
by  the  clear-sighted  Thomistic  theologian  is 
that  Occam  exercised  an  influence  over  the 
dominant  theory  of  Luther. 

Protestant  theologians  were  rather  dumb- 
founded by  the  revelations  which  Father 
Denifle  had  made,  thanks  to  his  knowledge  of 
the  theology,  the  mysticism,  and  the  liturgy 
of  the  Middle  Ages.  They  had  found  it  con- 
venient to  make  real  Christianity  begin  with 
Luther,  as  a  Jacobin  might  date  the  history 
of  France  from  the  Revolution.  The  facts 
were  too  clear  to  be  gainsaid.  Luther's  men- 
tal equipment  as  a  reformer  was  poor ;  even 
as  a  heretic  he  was  not  so  original  as  peo- 
ple had  thought.  So  much  might  be  granted. 
But  when  Father  Denifle  passed  on  to  dis- 
cuss the  moral  condition  of  Luther  at  the 
time  that  he  was  elaborating  his  theological 
system,  he  ceased  to  convince  Protestants. 
He  had  laid  about  with  a  scourge  of  this- 
tles among  the  contradictions  of  the  theo- 
logian and,  having  followed  the  movements 
of    his    mind    up    to    the    moment    when    he 


6  Introduction 


deviated  from  Catholic  teaching,  he  ventured 
to  assign  as  the  real  cause  of  this  deviation 
the  infidelities  of  the  father  of  the  Reforma- 
tion ;  if  Luther  believed  concupiscence  invin- 
cible, it  was  because  he  had  himself,  and  fre- 
quently, given  way  to  concupiscence.  A 
clamor  of  Lutheran  apologists  broke  out 
against  the  unmerciful  treatment  wjiich  the 
mendicant  friar  had  meted  out  to  the  apos- 
tate monk.  Denifle's  verdict  was  denounced 
as  a  calumny.  Haraack  was  as  excited  as 
the  rest,  although  he  spoke  with  caution. 
Father  Denifle  had  called  attention  to  what 
might  seem  insufficient  concern  about  truth 
in  some  of  the  statements  of  this  renowned 
historian  in  his  work  on  Luther.  Whatever 
may  be  thought  of  the  correctness  of  Father 
Denifle's  judgment  about  the  moral  disposi- 
tions of  the  father  of  Protestantism,  this  judg- 
ment did  not  bear  on  a  matter  which  could  be 
made  so  clear  as  Luther's  state  of  mind.  It 
has  not  found  support  in  the  more  recent  work 
of  another  Catholic  scholar,  Father  Grisar, 
S.J.,  who  has  dealt  with  the  question  in  the 
course  of  his  exhaustive  studies  on  Luther.^ 
He  declares  that  "neither  the  Commentary  on 
the  Psalms  nor  that  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans gives  the  impression  that  the  author 
was  morally  corrupt."  ^  Consequently,  he 
1  Luther,  by  Ilartmann  Grisar,  S.J.,  Freiburg  im 
Breisgau,  B.  Herder,  1911  ff.  English  translation, 
by  E.  M.  Lamond,  in  5  vols.,  B.  Herder,  completed 
ill  1917.  2  Op.  cit.,  I.,  p.  91. 


Introduction 


has  not  sought  for  the  origin  of  Luther's 
theories  in  his  moral  perversity. 

In  the  following  study  of  the  Commentary 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  I  shall  keep 
this  ps3^chological  problem  in  view.  Every- 
body admits  that  Luther's  personality  was  a 
considerable  factor  in  his  exegesis.  Some  of 
his  admirers  recognize  with  naive  satisfaction 
this  influence  of  the  dispositions  of  his  mind 
and  heart,  without  seeming  to  know  that  to 
be  guided  in  interpreting  another's  mind  by 
one's  own  prepossessions  and  feelings,  means 
to  depart  from  truth.  But  while  we  endeavor 
to  determine  to  what  extent  Luther  was  thus 
misled  in  his  understanding  of  the  teaching 
of  St.  Paul,  we  must  inquire  no  less  carefully 
to  what  extent  St.  Paul  influenced  Luther. 
For  Luther  really  thought  that  he  under- 
stood the  Apostle ;  he  was  convinced,  at  least 
in  the  beginning,  that  his  system  was 
grounded  on  the  Bible.  It  would  be  a  mis- 
take to  think  that  he  simply  read  into  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  a  system  of  thought 
formed  without  any  dependence  on  the 
Apostle. 

Before  entering  upon  this  study  of  the  re- 
lation between  the  text  of  Romans  and  the 
Lutheran  way  of  understanding  it,  of  the 
state  of  soul  and  the  exegetical  methods  which 
in  part  account  for  Luther's  interpretation, 
it  is  of  interest  to  note  that  a  cursory  read- 
ing of  the  Commentary  makes  it  clear  that 


8  Introduction 


the  idea  of  revolt  had  not  yet  entered  his 
thoughts.  He  still  believed  himself  loyal  to 
the  Catholic  Church.  He  purposed  only  to 
bring  religion  back  to  its  purest  sources.  It 
did  not  occur  to  him  that  he  would  ever  be 
reduced  to  seeking  salvation  outside  the 
Church.  No  book,  even  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
more  frequentlj^  denounces  heresy  or  paints 
heresy  in  darker  colors  than  does  the  Com- 
mentary. It  represents  the  heretic  as  a 
proud  man,  who  sins  first  through  igno- 
rance. If  contempt  be  mingled  with  ig- 
norance, he  is  in  the  net.  Then  he  clings  to 
what  seems  true  to  his  own  private  judgment ; 
and  at  the  moment  when  he  thinks  himself  sure 
of  the  truth,  freed  from  snares  and  pitfalls, 
he  is  really  a  captive.  Next,  he  becomes  im- 
patient of  contradiction,  and  will  listen  to 
nothing.  Finally,  he  is  seized  with  indignant 
zeal  for  his  own  inventions ;  he  pursues  and 
calumniates  his  enemies,  seeking  to  harm 
them.  His  punishment  has  been  already  in- 
flicted! The  Commentary  tells  us,  moreover, 
that,  whatever  heretics  may  do,  there  is  al- 
ways a  weak  spot  which  allows  one  to  unmask 
them.  You  have  only  to  ask  whence  they  hold 
their  mission.  That  is  a  death  blow.  They 
can  allege  neither  prophesy  nor  miracles. 
Mindful  of  this  need  of  proper  authorization, 
the  Wittenberg  professor  is  careful  to  shield 
himself  behind  his  title :  if  he  teaches,  it  is  by 
apostolic    commission.      This    gives    him    an 


Introduction  9 


apostolic  authority  and  a  right  to  blame  all 
that  is  evil,  even  in  the  most  exalted. 

We  propose  here,  firstly,  to  consider  Luth- 
er's Commentary  merely  as  an  exegetical  work, 
restricting  ourselves  to  an  examination  of  his 
method,  and  reserving  until  later  any  formal 
discussion  of  the  new  doctrines ;  secondly,  to 
study  the  intellectual  and  moral  dispositions 
of  Luther,  in  so  far  as  they  may  be  gathered 
from  his  work  on  this  Epistle  to  the  Romans ; 
thirdly,  to  indicate  the  new  doctrine  which  the 
Wittenberg  professor  so  dogmatically  gave 
out  as  the  genuine  teaching  of  St.  Paul,  and 
to  discuss  its  real  relation  to  that  teaching. 

The  exegesis  of  Luther  in  his  lectures  at 
the  University  of  Wittenberg  in  1515-1516 
deserves  study  for  many  reasons.  Foremost, 
it  was  destined  to  transform  the  religious  lives 
of  millions.  Henceforth,  the  teaching  of  St. 
Paul  as  interpreted  by  the  Augustinian  pro- 
fessor w^as  to  become  the  rule  of  faith  and 
practice  of  a  large  portion  of  the  Christian 
world.  And  it  still  holds  sway.  Many 
Protestants  admit,  indeed,  that  while  pro- 
fessing to  interpret  St.  Paul,  Luther  simply 
set  forth  his  own  ideas.  About  the  ideas 
themselves  they  care  little ;  they  are  as  inde- 
pendent in  his  regard  as  he  would  have  them 
to  be  in  regard  to  the  teaching  which  was  tra- 
ditional in  1516.  There  are,  however,  a  great 
many  Protestants  who  still  regard  Luther  as 
a  faithful  expositor  of  the  Apostle's  doctrine. 


10  Introduction 


Some  even,  like  Mr.  A.  Jundt/  exalt  his  exc- 
getical  fidelity  to  the  prejudice  of  his  origi- 
nality :  "St.  Paul,  Augustin,  Calvin,  have 
created  theological  systems,  Luther  has  re- 
stored Pauline  theology ;  his  mind,  attuned 
to  that  of  the  Apostle,  acquired  dogmatic 
precision  of  thought  once  he  understood 
what  St.  Paul  means  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans." Luther's  system  of  thought  possesses 
more  than  an  archeological  interest  for  the 
student  of  history  of  Bible  interpretation. 

We  are  fully  aware,  of  course,  that  a 
Catholic  who  criticizes  the  giant  of  the 
Reformation  can  expect  only  disdain  from 
Protestants.  Father  Denifle  has  recalled  that 
many  who  feel  perfectly  free  to  dissect  the 
words  and  actions  of  Jesus  m  ill  not  suffer  any 
disparagement  of  the  inviolable  Luther.  We 
are  incapable,  it  is  claimed,  of  understanding 
him.  The  cavilling  of  modern  dwarfs  can  no 
more  reach  him  than  the  envy  of  a  mole-hill 
could  efface  Mount  Blanc.  We  need  not,  then, 
be  embarrassed,  since  we  do  the  idol  no  harm. 
Besides,  we  are  conscious  of  only  seeking  the 
truth. 

1  Lg    developpemefit    dc    la    pensre    religieuse    do 
Luther  jusqu'en    1517.     Paris,   1903. 


CHAPTER    I 

LUTHER'S  COMMENTARY  ON  THE  EPISTLE 
TO  THE  ROMANS  'AS  AN  EXEGETICAL 
WORK 

1.    The  Structure  of  the  Commentary 

Tlie  text  of  Luther's  Commentary,  as  pub- 
lished by  Johannes  Ticker,  is,  naturally,  ac- 
cording to  the  original  of  Berlin,  with  nota- 
tion of  variants  in  the  Vatican  copy,  which 
differs  very  slightly  from  the  text.  The  first 
volume  is  consecrated  to  the  Glosses,  the  sec- 
ond to  the  Scliolia.  The  work  of  Luther  com- 
prises, indeed,  two  very  distinct  parts. 

He  used,  for  the  first  of  these  parts,  a 
printed  text  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
according  to  the  Vulgate,  with  considerable 
space  between  the  lines.  This  space  is  de- 
voted to  a  first  series  of  Glosses  which  were 
only  another  way  of  expressing  the  idea  of 
the  sacred  writer.  Sometimes  a  word  is  sub- 
stituted for  another  in  an  endeavor  to  get 
nearer  the  meaning  of  the  Greek,  sometimes 
several  words  are  paraphrased  or  explained. 
These  annotations  are  for  the  most  part  brief 
indications  of  consequences  to  be  drawn  from 
a  text.  In  the  edition  of  Ficker  the  text  of 
the  Bible  is  printed  in  heavy  (Egyptian) 
characters,  and  the  gloss  follows  in  Italic. 
11 


12        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

The  following  translation  will  give  an  idea 
of  the  book : 

Romans  1 .  28 :  And  as  they  did  not  ap- 
prove, make  efforts,  oa-  diligently  strive  to 
have  God  in  their  knowledge,  that  their 
heart  might  not  he  darkened,  the  knowledge 
of  God  being  lost.  This,  I  say,  they  did  not 
care  about,  therefore  God  delivered  them  up 
to  a  worthy  chastisement,  by  a  just  judgment, 
to  a  reprobate  sense,  a  dishonest  mind,  etc. 

Other  glosses  were  placed  in  the  margin. 
They  are  by  way  of  development  of  the  for- 
mer, explaining  more  in  detail  the  meaning 
of  the  Greek  text,  or  the  thought  of  the  Apos- 
tle, and  at  times  they  contain  citations,  etc. 
In  Ficker  these  glosses  are  assigned  a  place 
by  themselves,  under  the  others,  with  indi- 
cation of  the  texts  to  which  they  refer. 

The  text,  together  with  interlinear  and 
marginal  glosses,  occupies  only  28  pages  in 
quarto,  whereas  the  Scholia  extend  from  p.  29 
to  p.  152  of  the  manuscript.  The  Scholia 
form  a  continuous  commentary,  if  the  name 
can  be  given  to  such  an  original  work.  Some 
words  of  the  text  are  still  quoted,  but  digres- 
sions are  not  rare.  It  is  in  the  Scholia  that 
we  find  the  developments  which  refer  to  the 
new  doctrine.  The  glosses  reflect  it  also,  but 
less  clearly,  either  because  Luther  was  nat- 
urally led  to  write  these  short  notes  in  the 
terminology  of  traditional  exegesis,  or  be- 
cause the  text  of  St.  Paul  itself  served  as  a 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        18 

barrier.     The  new  ideas  are  freely  set  forth 
only  in  the  Scholia. 

2.  Neglect  of  the  Fathers  and  the 
Schoolmen 

It  is  in  these  Scholia  that  it  would  have 
been  well  to  determine  the  logical  connection 
of  the  Apostle's  thought.  The  system  of  St. 
Thomas  is  known :  he  reproduces  the  Latin 
text  of  a  pericope ;  then  he  dismembers  it,  so 
to  speak,  to  point  out  the  order  of  the  propo- 
sitions, the  relations  of  causality,  finality,  or 
consequence.  After  this  he  goes  on  to  ex- 
amine the  propositions,  endeavoring  solely  to 
disengage  their  meaning.  He  willingly  notes 
the  various  solutions  Mhich  may  be  given,  and 
sets  down  analogous  biblical  passages.  This 
commentary  of  St.  Thomas  would  be  a  model 
of  an  objective  explanation,  if  such  could  be 
produced  without  having  recourse  to  the  orig- 
inal text,  and  if  one  might  interpret  a  book 
without  studying  its  environment,  the  origin 
and  conflict  of  doctrines — without  applying 
all  that  we  call  historical  exegesis. 

St.  Thomas  has  at  least  the  merit  of  keep- 
ing his  own  personality  in  the  background. 
Father  Denifle  shows  us  how  impersonal  this 
method  was.  "If  we  compare,"  he  writes  in  a 
sort  of  supplement  to  his  work  on  Luther,^ 

1  Qtiellenhclege.  Die  ahldndischen  Schriftsauslcger 
his  Luther  iiher  Justitia  Dei  (Rom.  1.17),  und 
JUSTIFICATIO    (1905),  p.   136. 


14        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

"the  Commentary  of  St.  Thomas  with  those 
which  immediately  preceded  it,^  we  find  in 
these  earlier  ones,  to  speak  in  a,  general  way, 
the  same  questions,  often  the  same  solutions, 
the  same  scriptural  texts,  although  more 
numerous ;  but  in  the  commentary  of  St, 
Thomas,  as  in  his  Summa,  everything  is  han- 
dled with  more  perspicuity,  is  better  under- 
stood, is  grasped  in  a  surer  and  more  ob- 
jective way.  He  did  not,  however,  invent 
his  method ;  he  only  employed  logically  the 
traditional  way  of  expounding  Scripture." 

All  the  works  of  the  scholastic  exegetes  re- 
mained almost  unknown  to  Luther.^  He  has, 
indeed,  a  few  allusions  to  Peter  Lombard,  and 
Mr.  Ficker  has  expressed  the  view  that  he  had 
under  his  eyes  a  Latin  Vulgate  containing  the 
divisions  of  St.  Thomas  ;  but  his  contempt  for 
scholasticism,  which  led  him  to  an  open  rup- 
ture with  the  system,  kept  him  from  consult- 
ing, except  perhaps  very  rarely,  the  exegetes 
of  the  Middle  Ages. 

1  Father  Denifle  cites  in  tlie  preceding  pa.sres  the 
Dominicans  Guerric  of  St.  Quentin,  Odo  Gallus  (?), 
Gaufrid  of  Bleveio,  and  the  Franciscan  John  of  la 
Rochelle. 

2  Hugh  of  St.  Victor  is  cited  textiially,  but  the 
passage  is  not  found  in  his  works  (F.  312).  It  is 
the  same  with  a  quotation  from  Seneca  (F.  74), 
and  one  from  Cicero,  who  even  says  the  contrary 
of  what  is   in  the  citation    ( F.  35 ) . 

The  references  indicated  by  F.  with  a  number  are 
to  the  pages  of  the  volume  containing  the  Scholia, 
the  more  important.  F.g.  will  indicate  the  volume 
of  Ficker  which  contains  the  glosses. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        15 

This  neglect  was  unfortunate,  for,  although 
the  schoolmen  went  too  far  in  their  concern 
for  logical  order,  bringing  it  into  St.  Paul 
to  such  an  extent  as  to  reduce  his  utterances 
to  a  series  of  well-drawn  conclusions,  they 
could  at  least  have  taught  Luther  to  inform 
himself  about  the  plan  of  the  Apostle,  per- 
fectly recognizable  in  its  main  lines  in  spite  of 
the  almost  tumultuous  appearance  of  his  style. 

In  his  scorn  for  scholasticism  did  the  Au- 
gustinian  monk  prefer  to  go  directly  to  the 
Fathers?  The  influence  of  St.  Augustine  is 
evident.  Luther  has  told  us  what  an  impres- 
sion was  made  upon  him  by  the  De  spiritw 
et  littera.  This  might  be  recognized  by 
simply  reading  his  work.  The  books  against 
Julian,  De  nuptiis  et  concupisceiitia  and  oth- 
ers, furnish  him  with  quotations  and  veritable 
extracts.  We  shall  have  to  inquire  how  far 
he  really  reproduced  the  thought  of  one  whom 
he  regarded  as  the  founder  of  his  order,  and 
to  whom  he  had  consecrated  so  much  and 
such  exclusive  admiration.  St.  Ambrose  is 
named  ten  times,  twice  without  any  special 
reason,^  once  following  Erasmus,^  four  times 
following  St.  Augustine;^  and,  let  us  add,  a 
citation  which  is  rather  inaccurate  ^  and  one 
which  Luther  probably  borrowed  from  a  ci- 
tation   of   another.^      In   the   single   passage 

1  F.    108,   278.  4  F.   109. 

2  F.g.    12fi.  5  F.  28. 
3F.  116;   168;   169;  g.  69. 


16        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

where  Ambrose  Is  quoted  as  a  commentator, 
reference  is  made  to  the  distmguished  work 
which  we  call,  for  want  of  a  better  name,  the 
Amhrosiaster.  Luther  knew  it,  consequently, 
but  he  did  not  make  much  use  of  it.  St.  Cyp- 
rian is  named  three  times,  always  following 
St.  Augustine.  Chrysostom  himself  is  not 
otherwise  cited.  This  is  fortunate  for  him, 
because  he  would  surely  have  been  rudely 
handled.  St.  Jerome  was  better  known,  but 
especially  as  the  translator  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. 

Luther  was  not  obliged  to  display  in  his 
Commentary  wide  acquaintance  with  the 
opinions  of  the  Fathers,  but  he  should  at 
least  have  avoided  incorrect  general  state- 
ments about  writings  which  he  had  not  read. 
He  frequently  misrepresents  them.  For  in- 
stance, on  the  words  of  the  text:  "Let  every 
man  abound  in  his  own  sense,"  Luther  writes; 

This  saying  is  taken  everywhere  (passim) 
by  the  Holy  Fathers  and  Doctors  for  a  general 
declaration,  by  which  every  man  is  allowed  to 
abound  in  his  own  sense  in  the  understanding 
of  the  Scriptures.^ 

Concerning  this  statement  ]Mr.  Ficker 
notes  that  the  exegesis  of  Romans  14.5  is 
met  with  neither  in  the  Fathers  nor  in  the 
Scholastics. 

When  the  Commentar'if  speaks  of  "the 
iF.  325. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        17 

Fathers,"  one  cmu  be  sure  that  Lutlier  has  in 
inind  hardly  any  one  but  St.  Augustine,  in 
whom  the  Augustinian  monk  hears  the  whole 
school.  It  is  again  Mr.  Ficker  himself  who 
has  noticed  this.^  It  is,  then,  rather  to  igno- 
rance than  to  bad  faith  that  we  may  attribute 
Luther's  allegation  about  the  traditional  in- 
terpretation of  Romans  1.17,  so  severely 
judged  by  Father  Denifle,  upon  whom  it  im- 
posed enormous  researches.^ 

Luther  had  accustomed  himself  to  put 
down  as  an  "opinion  of  the  Fathers"  any  view 
which  in  his  own  neighborhood  was  regarded 
as  traditional. 

However,  he  had  direct  knowledge  of  St. 
Bernard,  whose  authority  he  willingly  alleged 
alongside  that  of  St.  Augustine.  Once  he 
even  attributes  to  Augustine  an  idea  which 
was  suggested  by  Bernard.^  And  he  grafts 
upon  his  w^ords  a  whole  theory."*  But  it  is  as 
an    ascetic   Doctor   much   more    than   as    an 


1  F.  144,  on  line  19 :  "Luther  means  here  as  else- 
where by  the  ancient  Fathers  especially  St.  Augus- 
tine." The  passage  which  calls  for  this  note  is 
characteristic : 

Consequently  as  the  ancient  Fathers  have  rightly 
said:  That  sin  of  origin  is  the  fuel  (fonies) ,  the 
law  of  the  flesh  ( leoe  carnis ) ,  the  law  of  the  mem- 
bers {lex  membrorum) ,  the  weakness  of  nature 
{languorem  nature),  the  tyrant,  the  sickness  of  ori- 
gin   (tyranniis,  morbus  originis) ,  etc. 

-  Tlie  whole  volume  of  Quellenbelege. 

3  F.  201. 

4F.   197. 


18        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 


exegete  that  Bernard  is  cited;  only  one  gloss 
is  borrowed  from  him.^ 

If  now  we  return  to  more  recent  commen- 
tators, we  find  Luther  making  use  of  the  Or- 
dinary and  of  the  Interlineary  glossaries  cur- 
rent in  his  time.^  These  he  had  habitually 
under  his  eyes.  He  also  used  Nicholas  de 
Lyra,  quoted  oftener  when  he  parts  company 
with  him  in  his  interpretation  than  when  they 
agree.  Paul  of  Burgos  is  named  several 
times. 

3.  Dependence  on  the  Humanists  Lefevre 
d'Etaples,  Erasmus,  and  Reuchlin 

Luther  himself  has  defined  the  attitude 
which  he  intended  to  assume  in  the  explana- 
tion of  the  word  of  God,  for  we  may  appl}?^ 
to  his  whole  method  what  he  says  of  one  pas- 
sage (Romans  1.3—4): 

1  do  not  know  whether  this  passage  has  been 
really  and  truly  expounded  by  anyone.  Tlie 
ancients  were  prevented  from  doing  so  by  the 

iFg.  17;  33. 

2  The  Ordinary  Glossary  {Glossa  Ordinaria)  was 
a  compilation  of  explanations  of  scriptural  words 
and  ideas  which  were  current  during  the  Middle  Ages 
and  down  to  Luther's  time.  It  is  usually  attributed  to 
Walafrid  Strabo,  Abbot  of  Reichenau,  who  died  at  the 
court  of  Charles  the  Bald,  July  17,  849.  The  Inter- 
linear Glossary  (Glossa  Interlinearis) ,  by  Anselm 
of  Laon  ( -f-  1117),  explained  the  meaning  of  words 
between  the  lines  of  the  Bible. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        19 

incorrectness  of  the  translation,  the  more  recent 
commentators,  by  the  absence  of  the  spirit.^ 

A  concise  formula,  but  strong  and  ex- 
pressive, such  as  occur  frequently  under  his 
pen.  He  believed,  then,  with  the  most  en- 
lightened minds  of  his  time,  that  the  moment 
had  come  for  exegetes  to  define  with  more 
precision  the  meaning  of  words.  For  tins 
recourse  must  be  had  to  the  original  text. 
Illustrious  humanists  had  opened  the  way  in 
the  case  of  the  Greek  New  Testament.  Luther, 
so  independent  in  regard  to  the  Scholastics, 
does  not  hesitate  to  accept  the  moderns  as 
his  real  authorities.  For  everything  pertain- 
ing to  the  sense  of  the  Greek  he  depends  on 
Lefevre  d'Etaples.  The  first  edition  of  the 
Epistole  Pauli  Apostoli  had  appeared  in 
Paris  in  the  year  1512.  Luther  never  dis- 
puted d'Etaples'  authority  as  a  Hellenist 
until  the  day  a  more  luminous  star  came 
within  the  ken  of  Wittenberg.  The  Novum 
Testamentum  of  Erasmus  appeared  at  Basle 
only  in  1516,  but  Luther  already  uses  it 
after  his  ninth  chapter.  Henceforth  Eras- 
mus is  the  master  for  Greek  and  references 
to  the  Greek  text  become  more  and  more  fre- 
quent in  the  glosses,  while  allusions  to  the  re- 
ligious and  political  conditions  of  the  times 

1  F.  9 :  Iste  locus  nescio  si  ab  ullo  sit  vere  et  recte 
expositiis.  Antiquis  obstitit  interpretationis  im- 
proprietas,    recentioribus   vero    absentia   spiritus. 


20        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

are  multiplied  in  the  Scholia.  The  mendi- 
cant monk  entered  at  the  same  time  into  the 
current  of  humanism  and  into  Erasmus'  aspi- 
rations for  reform.  It  is  even  probable 
(Ficker  infers  it  from  the  handwriting  ^)  that 
more  than  one  philological  note  was  added  in 
the  margin  to  the  first  part  of  the  Commen- 
tary after  Erasmus  had  appeared. 

But  Erasmus  was  already  -  for  Luther 
what  he  so  loudly  declared  him  to  be  in  their 
controversy  on  free  will,  a  profane  and  super- 
ficial humanist,  little  concerned  about  the 
things  of  God.  If  the  new  exegesis  had  "cor- 
rectness of  translation"  (proprietas  ver- 
borum),  there  was  lacking  to  it  the  spirit  of 
the  ancients,  by  which  Luther  meant  espe- 
cially the  doctrine  of  Augustine,  the  faithful 
interpreter  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  had 
spoken  by  the  mouth  of  Paul. 

Whence  we  may  conclude  that  his  ideal  was 
to  compose  a  commentary  which  should  be 
above  reproach  as  regards  the  explanation  of 
the  Greek  but  nevertheless  penetrated  by  the 
spirit  which  had  animated  the  Apostle.  So 
we  shall  see  him  consciously  depart  from  the 
literal  sense  under  the  influence  of  the  view 
that  the  meaning  of  Paul  can  only  be  attained 
by  those  who  are  "in  spirit." 

1  F.  21. 

2  Letter  to  Spalatin,  of  Oct.  19,  1516,  where  he 
differs  from  Erasmus  regarding  the  sense  of  St. 
Paul;  letter  to  Lang  of  March  1,  1517. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        21 

The  solution  is :  because  the  Apostle  speaks  in 
spirit,  he  is  not  understood  except  by  those  vvlio 
are  in  spirit.^ 

Luther  was  well  inspired  in  accepting  the 
authority  of  the  humanists.  His  competency 
in  Greek  was  at  the  time  very  mediocre.  He 
learned  it  only  later  on  from  JMelanchthon 
and  he  always  remained  far  inferior  to  Eras- 
mus in  regard  to  the  understanding  of  words. 
It  is  true  that  Erasmus'  philological  tact  was 
wonderful. 

It  would  be  a  loss  of  time  to  point  out  here 
the  cases,  more  and  more  numerous,  in  which 
Luther  translates  according  to  the  Greek,  fre- 
quently insisting  on  its  difference  from  the 
Vulgate.  Mr.  Ficker  has  taken  care  in  such 
cases  to  note  the  translation  of  Lefevre  and 
that  of  Erasmus.  Luther  always  respected 
their  authority.  Towards  the  end  of  his  Com- 
mentary, after  having  defended  at  length 
his  view  on  the  meaning  of  (f>L\ovTiiJiovfx€voq 
(Rom.  15  .  20),  which  he  translates  amhitiosus 
with  Lefevre  against  Erasmus,  he  is  careful 
to  make  a  concession  to  the  authority  of  the 
great  humanist.^  His  tone  Is  here  very  far 
from  the  disdain  which  he  shows  for  theolo- 
gians. He  doubtless  realized  his  linguistic 
inferiority. 

IF.  66. 

2  F.   345:    But   let   us   not  condemn   the  judcrment 
of   Erasmus  and  of  those  like  him. 


22        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

And,  indeed,  his  personal  contribution  does 
not  equal  even  that  of  Lefevre,  not  to  speak 
of  Erasmus.  The  former  had  translated 
Romans  42 . 4 :  de  filio  suo  .  .  .  definito  filio 
Dei  ill  potestate  .  .  .  Jhesu  Christo  domino 
nostro.  Luther  translates  bptaOivro^  des- 
tinato  sive  definito,  declarato,  ordinato,  etc., 
without  seeming  to  attach  much  importance 
to  the  varieties  of  meaning  which  these  words 
represent.^  He  hesitates  to  replace  Jhesu 
Christi  Domini  nostri  by  the  ablative  on  the 
ground  that  the  Greek  text  is  equivocal.^ 
However,  he  is  right  in  retaining  ^  secundum 
spiritum  sanctificaiionis,  which  Lefevre  had 
translated  per  spiritum  sanctitatis. 

One  does  not  see  why  he  replaced  in  die 
(Rom.  S.5)  by  in  diem;  he  notes  Greci,  in 
diem,  et  melius,'^  but  no  authority,  Greek  or 
Latin,  known  to  us,  can  have  suggested  this. 

The  Latin  text  credit  a  sunt  ,  .  .  eloquia 
Dei  (Rom.  3.2),  like  the  Greek  cVto-Tev- 
Ooxrav,  signifies  that  the  word  of  God  has 
been  entrusted  to  the  Jews.  Perhaps  on  ac- 
count of  his  preoccupation  concerning  the 
role  of  faith,  Luther  understands  the  text  to 
mean  that  the  Jews  had  believed  the  word  of 
God.^     Nevertheless,  he  puts  aside  the  read- 

iF.  9. 

2  F.  11.     Graecus  textiis  non  potest  esse  certus. 

3  With  Valla,  F.  9,  note  22. 
4F.  17. 

5  Mr.    Ficker    notes    that    this    interpretation    and 
his  preference  for  the  neuter  comes  from  the  com- 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        23 

ing  ah  UUsy  which  would  lead  to  this  con- 
fusion, and  retains  only  credita  sunt  eloquia 
Dei. 

Another  still  stranger  confusion.  In  the 
famous  text  on  Original  Sin  (Rom.  5.12) 
in  quo  is  glossed  peccato  originali,  and  this 
sense  is  maintained  in  the  Scholia:  Sed  nul- 
lum aliud  est,  in  quo  omnes  peccat^erunt,  pro- 
prium  peccatuniy  sed  unusquisque  in  suo 
peccato.^  Is  it  that  Luther  has  neglected  to 
consult  the  Greek  text  of  this  important  pas- 
sage? He  would  not  have  understood  e<jt'(3  of 
sin,  which  is  feminine  (a/xaprtaj.  But  he  has 
expressed  himself  further  on  concerning  this 
in  quo: 

This  is  ambiguous  in  Greek,  whether  mascu- 
line or  neuter.^  Therefore^  it  seems  that  the 
Apostle  wished  it  understood  in  both  senses. 

Consequently  a  double  literal  sense,  com- 
mented on  by  St.  Augustine.  Luther  holds 
decidedly  ^to  the  neuter.  The  authority  of 
St.  Augustine  dispenses  him  from  a  deeper 
study  of  the  Greek. 

This  same  authority  prevented  him  from 
noticing  a  remark  of  Lefevre  on  the  mean- 
ing of    KaT€pyd^€cr6aL     (Rom.  7.18),  which  is 

mentary  of  Lefevre;  iDut  may  it  not  be  that 
Lefevre  understood  e^'  ^  to  mean  eo  quod  (be- 
cause) ?  where  Luther  says  clearly  in  quo  peccato 
(in   which   sin). 

1  F.  6L     Credita,  i.  e.,  per  fidem  suscepta. 

2F.g.  48;   142. 


24        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

not  perficere  (to  perfect),  but  simply  operari 
(to  do).  But  it  would  have  been  necessary 
to  give  up  the  doctrinal  opposition  between 
facere  and  perficere,^  favorable  to  his  thesis, 
as  we  shall  see.  I  cannot  blame  him  for  hav- 
ing confirmed  the  meaning  of  perficere  in 
Romans  7.18  by  Galatians  5.16,  where  the 
Greek  has  another  verb,^  since  he  is  in  this 
place  ^  but  following  St.  Augustine. 

Father  Denifle  '^  also  appears  to  me  too 
severe  when  he  condemns  the  exegesis  of  ego 
ipse  (I  myself)  in -Romans  7.25: 

I^  he  says,  the  whole  man,  the  same  person, 
serve  in  both  services.^ 

Luther  should  have  consulted  the  Greek 
text  ( atiTos  iyo) ) ,  which  authonzes  the  ex- 
planation: "If  alone,  if  left  to  myself."  St. 
Augustine  and  St.  Thomas  (unus  et  idem)^ 
are  guilty  of  the  same  neglect.  In  reality, 
both  explanations  are,  perhaps,  equally  prob- 
able. Needless  to  say,  St.  Augustine  in  no 
wise  authorizes  Luther  to  conclude :  Simul  Jus- 
tus est  et  peccat  (While  just  he  sins). 

1  Denifle-Paquier,  III.,  p.  107,  K  1;  F.  171. 

2  Non  perficietis. 

3  F.  182. 

4  Denifle-Paquier,  III.,  107  f. 

5  F.  176:  ego,  inquit,  totus  homo,  persona  eadem, 
servio   iitranque   servitutem. 

6  This  particular  point  has  no  influence  on  the 
determination  of  the  general  theme,  whether  it  be 
question  of  the  regenerate  man  or  the  unregenerate. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        25 

On  the  otlier  huiul,  Father  Dcniflc  is  riglit 
in  censuring  Luther — as  Melanchtlion  (hd 
before  him — for  treating  the  statement  about 
faith  in  Hebrews  11.1  as  if  "substantia  fu- 
turarum  rerum"  (the  substance  of  things 
future)  meant  the  possession  of,  and  power 
of  using,  future  things :  possessio  et  facultas 
futurarujn  rerum.^ 

We  again  find  in  the  Commentary  on  Ro- 
mans 8.35  St.  Augustine  opposed  to  Lefevre 
in  express  terms,  this  time  in  a  case  where 
the  latter  is  on  the  right  side;  the  love  of 
Christ  is  indeed  that  which  He  has  for  us, 
active  and  not  passive.  In  other  cases 
Lefevre  has  proved  unreliable  as  a  guide. 
Abba  ho  pater  (Rom.  8.15)  is  transcribed 
in  Latin  and  made  equivalent  to  Abba,  quod 
est  pater,^  as  if  the  article  represented  the 
relative.  Of  the  two  readings  (Rom.  9.10)  : 
Isaac,  patre  nostro  and  Isaac  patris  nostri, 
the  first  is  better.  Luther  prefers  the  second 
with  Lefevre  against  Erasmus,  whose  influ- 
ence is  about  to  begin. ^ 

Nevertheless,  it  doubtless  would  be  unjust 
to  judge  of  his  knowledge  of  Greek  by  the 
translation  of  </)tA.os  by  amor,  which  came 
down  to  him  from  the  exegesis  of  the  Middle 
Ages.^ 

Taking  it  all  in  all,  Luther  made  a  judi- 
cious use  of  the  humanists.     Father  Denifle 

1  Denifle-Paquier,  III.,  108;  F.  235. 

2  F.g.  73.  3  F.  222.  4  F.  284. 


26        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

complains,  without  giving  definite  cases,  that 
he  sounds  the  trumpet  when  the  Greek  text 
seems  to  favor  him.^ 

These  cases  are  assuredly  not  very  fre- 
quent. Here  are  two.  In  his  interlinear  gloss 
Luther  has  the  certainly  correct  translation : 
quod  enim  mortuus  est  (Rom.  6.4),  but  in 
the  marginal  gloss : 

"In  greco  habetur:  quod  enim  mortiium  est 
peccato,  mortuum  est  semel"  et  multo  melius. 
"Quod  autem  vivit,  vivit  Deo."  Quod,  i.  e., 
quodcunquCj  pronominaliter^  non  conjunctiona- 
liter. 

And  he  reproaches  the  translator  with  go- 
ing outside  his  role  to  give  exegesis : 

There  is  no  greater  vice  in  a  translator,  be- 
cause he  imparts  to  others  his  own  idea,  which 
is  not  in  him  whom  he  translates.^ 

He  is  surely  in  good  faith ;  he  does  not  sus- 
pect, then,  that  he  himself  adds  to  the  text, 
or  rather  inflicts  upon  it  an  interpretation 
contrary  to  the  mind  of  the  writer  in  the  in- 
terest of  his  thesis,  namely,  that  sin  truly 
dies  only  at  the  threshold  of  eternal  life: 

Nor  can  he  again  die  to  sin,  who  has  once 
died  to  sin,  for  there  has  followed  upon  it  eter- 
nal justice,  which  nevermore   sins.^ 

1  Denifle-Paquier,  III.,   107. 

2  F.g.  55.  3  F.  158. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        %1 

Another  case  where  prepossession  is  not 
less  evident.  Tlie  Greek  yevea-Oo  Se  6  ^eos 
dXrjOris  (Rom.  3.4)  has  been  translated  in 
the  Vulgate,  Est  autem  Deus  verax.  It  was 
impossible  to  translate  f,at,  because  Paul 
meant  in  the  logical  sense :  let  it  then  be  well 
understood  that  God  is  truthful.  This  is 
what  Lefevre  has  well  seen  in  rendering  esto. 
Luther  follows  him,  but  treats  the  verb  as  a 
real  imperative  and  connects  with  it  the  scrip- 
tural text  which  follows : 

That  this  is  to  be  taken  in  an  imperative 
sense  is  proved  by  the  authority  which  he  al- 
leges.^ ...  As  it  is  written^  that  is  to  say  that 
we  must  believe  in  him,  because  to  be  justified  is 
to  believe,  as  will  be  said  below.^ 

However,  this  tendency  to  seek  for  his  doc- 
trine in  the  original  texts  is  much  more  ap- 
parent in  his  elucubrations  on  the  Hebrew. 

In  dealing  w^ith  the  Bible,  Greek  was  not 
alone  to  be  considered.  It  was  necessary  to 
go  back  to  the  language  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. This  was  not  without  interest  even 
for  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  which  cites  so 
many  passages  of  Moses  and  the  Prophets. 
In  this  domain,  too,  a  revolution  was  going 
on,  and  the  conflict  between  the  Dominicans 
of  Cologne  and  Reuchlin  marks  its  inception. 
Luther  had  all  the  more  sympathy  with  the 
Hebrew  scholar  that  he  thought  he  could  get 
IF.  52.  2F.  63  f. 


28        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

from  him  support  for  some  points  of  his  doc- 
trine. We  are  obhged  to  insist  on  his  mis- 
takes, which  go  even  beyond  those  of 
Reuchhn. 

Here  is  an  example  connected  with  justifi- 
cation. When  we  recognize  God's  justice,  He 
is  justified  for  us;  it  is,  on  our  part,  an  act 
of  faith,  which  He  reckons  unto  us  for  right- 
eousness. At  the  same  time,  then,  that  He 
is  justified.  He  justifies.  And  this  double 
operation  is  altogether  conformable  to  the 
double  state  of  the  Scripture,  passive  in 
Greek  and  Latin,  ut  justificeris,  active  in  He- 
brew.    This  is  said  in  express  terms: 

Thus  it  is  in  agreement  with  the  Hebrew,^ 
which  has:  "I  have  sinned  against  thee,  there- 
fore thou  shalt  justify/'  that  is,  work  justifica- 
tion, "by  thy  word  and  cleanse  when  thou 
judgest."  Consequently,  when  justified  He 
justifies,  and  when  He  justifies  He  is  justified. 
Wherefore  the  same  is  expressed  by  the  active 
verb  in  Hebrew  and  by  the  passive  in  our  trans- 
lation.^ 

This  astonishing  argument  is  baseless,  since 
the  Hebrew  text  of  Psalm  50  (51)  .6  has  the 
passive  as  well  as  the  Greek:  "That  thou 
mayest  be  recognized  just  in  thy  sentence, 
and  clear  from  reproach  in  thy  judgment." 

1  Picker  refers  to  Reuchlin,  Septem  psalmi  poeni- 
tentiales  hehraice  cum,'  grammatica  tralacione  latina, 
1512.  2r.  65. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        29 

At  times  Luther  has  recourse  to  the  Sep- 
tuagint  which  Augustine  may  have  led  him 
to  regard  as  an  inspired  translation.  For 
instance,  he  notes  that  no  one  is  exempt  from 
concupiscence,  ''not  even  a  child  of  one  day," 
a  reference  to  Job  14.4  according  to  the  Sep- 
tuagint.^ 

But  the  Hebrew  serves  Luther  above  all  to 
establish  imputative  justice.  Here  again 
Reuchlin  furnishes  him  with  a  translation, 
very  literal  in  appearance,  on  which  he  en- 
grafts a  very  fantastic  interpretation. 

As  an  example  we  may  cite  the  following 
commentary  on  Psalms  32 . 1-2 :  "Blessed  are 
they  whose  iniquities  are  forgiven,  and  whose 
sins  are  covered.  Blessed  is  the  man  to  whom 
the  Lord  hath  not  imputed  sin" : 

"Blessed  (that  is,  it  is  well  with  him),  who 
becomes  unburdened,"  that  is,  who  by  grace  is 
made  free  from  the  load  of  crime,  namely,  the 
actual  sin  which  he  has  committed.  But  this  is 
not  enough;  there  must  be  at  the  same  time  "a 
covering  for  sin,"  that  is,  his  radical  evil  must 
not  be  imputed  as  sin.  It  is  then  passed  by 
when  it  exists  indeed,  but  is  not  seen,  not  ob- 
served, not  imputed.  .  .  .  Blessed  the  man,  the 
Lord  will  not  impute  unto  him  his  iniquity." 

Luther  pretends  very  seriously  that  the 
Hebrew    constantly    maintains    this    distinc- 

1  F.  107.     The  reference  has  escaped  Mr.   Ficker. 
2F.  113. 


30        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

tlon  between  actual  and  original  sin.  If  it 
is  not  recognized,  it  is  the  fault  of  the  Vul- 
gate: 

These  differences  are  always  kept  in  the  He- 
brew, but  the  translation  lacks  precision  and 
everything  is  consequently  very  confused.^ 

He  goes  on  to  maintain  without  blinking 
that  Pescha  signifies  actual  sin,  Hattaa 
original  sin,  Aon  the  absence  of  righteous- 
ness, Rascha  impiety  or  the  vice  of  pride, 
the  setting  up  of  one's  own  righteousness.^ 

It  may  be  that  Luther  was  under  the  spell 
of  the  word  "to  impute" ;  but  If  he  was,  he 
did  not  delay  to  exert  upon  the  text  the  in- 
fluence of  his  own  Ideas.  It  Is  useless  to  prove 
that  his  nice  defining  of  the  meaning  of  He- 
brew terms  is  arbitrary  and  false. 

When  not  preoccupied  with  his  theories,  he 
occasionally  makes  a  judicious  remark.  Thus, 
on  Romans  11.27: 

The  words,  "When  I  shall  take  away  their 
sins"  are  not  in  Isaias,  but  either  have  been 
added  by  the  Apostle  or  have  been  taken  from 
other  prophets.^ 

Another  observation,  which  indicates  some 
knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  language,  is  his 
interlinear  gloss  on  Romans  15.13: 

IF.  119.         2F.  119,  123.         3F.  263;  cf.  g.  43. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        31 

In  virtute  spiritus  sancti,  i.e.,  per  virtutem 
spiritus  sancti ;  hebraica  locutio  quae  equivo- 
cum  habet  hane  prepositionem  "in."  ^ 

That  is,  Paul  would  have  allowed  to  appear 
in  Greek  the  instrumental  meaning  of  tlie  He- 
brew heth.  Tills  erudition  did  not  come  to 
maturity,  but  it  is  interesting  to  see  Luther 
entering  upon  a  path  which  was  later  to  be 
followed  by  so  many,  not  without  some 
danger. 

4.    Luther  on  St.  Paul's  Citations  op 

THE  Old  Testament 

Incidentally  we  have  just  met  with  the 
delicate  question  of  Paul's  citations  of  the 
Old  Testament.  Luther  does  not  seem  to 
have  any  very  definite  criterion.  At  times  he 
expresses  himself  as  a  rigid  conservative. 
For  instance,  to  reconcile  the  divergencies  of 
the  text  of  Paul  (who  quotes  from  the  Sep- 
tuagint)  with  the  Hebrew,  he  maintains  that 
both  are  right : 

Consequently^  botli  texts  have  the  same  thing, 
but  the  LXX  express  the  cause,  the  Hebrew 
tlie  effect,  as  is  very  often  the  ease.- 

I  do  not  know  where  he  found  this  rule  or 
what  examples  he  might  have  given.     Else- 

1  F.g-.  131:  "in  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
that  is,  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost;  the  He- 
brew locution  corresponding  to  "in"  is  equivocal. 

2  F.  238. 


32        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

where   he    expresses   himself   like    a   modem 
critic : 

(The  Apostle)  cites  the  Bible  as  it  was  pos- 
sessed by  those  to  whom  he  was  writing.^ 

In  certain  cases  Paul  seems  to  depart 
freely  from  both  texts.  Then  Luther  very 
justly  holds  that  the  Apostle  has  a  right  to 
argue  from  the  Scriptures  without  confining 
himself  to  the  literal  sense.  On  "Who  shall 
ascend  into  heaven"  (Rom.  10. 6)  he  remarks : 

Moses  does  not  use  the  words  in  this  sense 
in  Deuteronomy  SO,  but  the  Apostle  under  the 
Spirit's  influence  draws  out  the  meat  of  them 
with  true  insight,  teaching  us  as  by  a  power- 
ful argument  that  the  whole  Bible  deals  every- 
where with  Christ  alone,  when  its  inner  mean- 
ing is  perceived,  although  on  the  surface  it 
speaks  of  other  matters — figures  and  shadows.^ 

In  this  case,  then,  the  Apostle  would  have 
argued  from  the  spiritual  sense.  Father 
Cornely  interprets  the  passage  still  more 
freely,  maintaining  that  St.  Paul  simply  uses 
the  biblical  terms  without  precise  argumen- 
tation. 

Elsewhere  Luther  himself  offers  another  so- 
lution. On  Romans  4.17,  instead  of  simply 
nx)ting  that  the  words  "before  God  whom  he 
believed"  are  not  part  of  the  citation  from 
Genesis  (as  he  reads  credidisti  and  does  not 
consult  the  Greek,  Lefevre  having  neglected 
1  F.ff.  30.  2  F.  240. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        33 

to   do   so),   lie   supposes    that   Paul   borrows 
from  other  Jewish  books  : 

This  is  not  in  the  Hebrew,  but  it  is  usefully 
added  to  confute  the  Jews,  from  whose  books 
the  Apostle  doubtless  took  it.^ 

This  solution  is  again  very  conservative  if 
these  books  of  the  Jews  were  regarded  as  :n- 
spired,  but  we  have  already  seen,  in  citing  his 
remarks  on  Romans  11.27,  that  he  thought 
that  the  Apostle  had  a  right  to  add  his  own 
words.  Lefevre  had  called  his  attention  to 
the  freedom  of  some  of  St.  Paul's  citations 
(on  Rom.  4.17). 

5.    The  Literal  and  the  Spiritual 
Senses  of  Scripture 

We  have  seen  Luther  admit  in  the  most 
sweeping  fashion  the  spiritual  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture. He  was  then  naturally  led  on  to  alle- 
gorical explanations.  In  fact,  he  does  use 
allegory  much  more  than  St.  Thomas.  It 
was  perhaps  a  matter  of  tradition  and  habit ; 
or  perhaps  he  wished  to  preserve,  in  the  mod- 
ern exegesis  which  he  w^as  inaugurating,  that 
spirit  whose  rights  he  championed. 

His    allegories    are    not    very    remarkable. 

Paul  begins  with  the  Romans,  who  were  the 

head  of  the  world,  as  John  baptized  Christ 

beginning  with  the  head ;  the  Epistle  of  Paul 

1  F.  42. 


34        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

is  then  like  a  river  of  Paradise  or  the  Nile, 
etc.^  Moses  fleeing  from  the  rod  changed 
into  a  serpent,  is  a  figure  of  the  man  to  whom 
the  law  is  promulgated.^  Christ  is  named 
Hermon,  because  he  was  anathematized  by  the 
Jews.^  The  Jews  coming  to  Christ  at  the 
end  of  time  are  prefigured  by  the  brethren  of 
Joseph.'*  Those  who  do  not  for  the  sake  of 
higher  service  consent  to  abandon  their  pres- 
ent occupations,  refuse  to  lend  an  ass  to  the 
Savior,  etc.^ 

Luther's  inclination  to  look  at  everything 
from  the  moral  point  of  view  prevents  him  at 
times  from  paying  sufficient  attention  to  the 
literal  meaning.  The  expression  of  Romans 
2 .  22,  sacrilegium  facts  (thou  committest  sac- 
rilege), is  explained  in  the  interlinear  gloss: 

By  polluting  and  violating,  by  evil  desires, 
the  true  temple  of  God  which  is  the  heart.*^ 

It  is  not  that  he  does  not  know  what  the 
meaning  of  Upoa-vXets  is ;  in  the  Scholia  he 
interprets  it: 

Sacrilege  is  the  pillage  and  robbery  from  a 
temple. 

But  he  immediately  launches  into  two  moral 

meanings  to  which  he  adds  that  of  his  gloss. 

This  is  not  the  work  of  an  innovator.    Nor 


IF.  17. 

3F.  21G. 

5  F.  2S7. 

2F.  192. 

4F.  202. 

c  F.g.  23. 

Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        35 

could  one  do  Liitlicr  the  honor  to  consider 
liini  as  a  pioneer  in  historical  e^cegesis.  Schol- 
ars of  the  past  century  have  discussed  the 
reason  of  St.  Paul's  addressing  to  Rome  a 
treatise  on  the  relation  of  the  Gospel  to  the 
Law.  They  asked  whether  the  Romans  were 
imbued  with  judaizing  errors,  and  they  stud- 
ied the  relations  between  Jews  and  Gentiles. 
But  the  questions  had  long  been  put.  Mar- 
cion  dealt  with  them ;  St.  Thomas  had  given 
them  thought.  They  never  occurred  to  Luther, 
until  he  came  to  the  second  of  Romans,  which 
speaks  of  the  strong  and  the  weak.  Brought 
thus  face  to  face  with  them,  he  simply  notes 
that  everything  the  Apostle  says  is  aimed 
at  the  Jewish  superstition,  which  certain  false 
apostles  taught  concerning  foods  and  days.^ 

Naturally  Luther  contemplates  with  sym- 
pathy the  freedom  of  mind  shown  by  the 
Apostle ;  but  the  abuses  with  which  Paul  had 
to  deal  inspired  less  interest  than  did  those  of 
his  own  times ;  the  Rome  of  Nero  could  not 
take  his  mind  away  from  the  Rome  of  Leo. 

However,  he  felt  very  keenly  the  difficulty 
presented  by  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  Ro- 
mans, which  has  so  much  interested  mod- 
em scholars.  How  did  Paul,  who  had  never 
been  in  Rome,  know  so  many  people  there  .^ 
All  his  Asiatic  friends  would  seem  to  have 
gone  thither  before  him.  Luther  did  not,  as 
has  been  claimed,  raise  this  question ;  and  the 
IF.  313;   cf.  g.  on  Rom.   16.17. 


36        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

solution,  which  he  gives  as  personal,  is  clearly 
bad: 

Therefore  I  meanwhile  in  my  own  mind  will 
to  think  this,  that  these  persons  are  all  Achaians 
and  Corinthians^  whom  the  Apostle  commends 
to  them,  that  they  may  know  and  greet  them/ 

So  the  Romans  are  invited  to  salute  friends 
of  the  Apostles  who  remain  in  Greece.  The 
reason  would  be  the  Hebrew  custom  of  plac- 
ing in  the  Synagogues  the  names  of  all  Jews 
in  tribal  order.  Even  if  this  custom  had  been 
constant,  it  would  throw  no  light  on  the 
problem. 

IF.  139. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  PERSONALITY  OF  THE  COMMENTATOR 

1.  The  Influence  of  the  Commentator 
Upon  the  Commentary 

What  century  has  not  resounded,  in  coun- 
tries whose  people  were  capable  of  self-ex- 
pression, with  the  old  lamentation  over  the 
attacks  and  the  victories  of  evil  within  us? 
Plato  made  Socrates  describe  the  astonish- 
ment of  reason  in  presence  of  the  unleashed 
wild  beasts  of  the  lower  appetite.^  St.  Paul 
had  figured  in  the  anguish  of  his  double  self 
all  humanity  involved  in  sin.  Manichaeism, 
a  long-lived  and  vigorous  heresy,  assigned  to 
evil  an  almost  divine  position ;  it  transported 
the  conflict  into  the  spheres  of  the  deity. 

Luther  was  one  of  the  sons  of  Adam  who 
suffered  most  painfully  from  the  attacks  of 
what  he  called  concupiscence :  leanings  to 
pride,  anger,  the  pleasures  of  sense.  He 
could  not,  like  the  platonic  Gnostics,  attribute 
this  domestic  hostility  to  the  fall  of  the  spirit 
into  matter,  still  less  see  in  it  the  eternal 
battle  of  two  divine  principles. 

He  thought  that  St.   Paul   furnished  him 
1  Repiihlic. 
37 


38        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

with  the  desired  explanation  ;  concvipiscence 
was  the  heritage  of  man  from  his  first  sinful 
father;  it  was  original  sin. 

St.  Paul  taught,  indeed,  that  the  disobe- 
dience of  Adam  had  brought  into  the  world  a 
sin  which  is  transmitted  from  father  to  son, 
and  the  punishment  of  which  is  death.  But 
he  thought  of  this  situation  only  by  way  of 
comparison  w^ith  the  state  of  the  first  man,  a 
happy  state  from  which  the  human  race  had 
been  degraded.  He  did  not  teach  that  we 
have  inherited  a  nature  irremediably  vitiated. 
An  important  group  of  theologians  (and  it 
may  be  said  that  there  is  no  Catholic  theolo- 
gian today  who  does  not  belong  to  it)  ex- 
plained that  original  sin,  transmitted  to  all, 
is  only  the  privation  of  this  privilege,  called 
original  justice,  granted  to  our  first  parents. 
Nature  is  really  lowered  and  despoiled  of  the 
gifts  which  God  had  destined  for  it,  but  it 
is  not  thereby  deprived  of  free-will.  And  St. 
Paul  had  shown  admirably  that  the  goodness 
of  God,  frustrated  at  first  in  its  designs,  had 
afterwards  realized  them  in  Christ  with  more 
richness.  Through  Christ,  through  Baptism 
received  in  Christ's  name — an  external  act 
by  which  the  believer  subjects  himself  to 
Christ  and  is  incorporated  into  Him,  sin  loses 
its  hold.  The  Christian  is  dead  to  sin ;  he  is 
freed,  purified  from  the  original  stain.  He 
retains,  indeed,  his  nature,  composed  of  a 
reasonable  soul,  and  a  body  the  tendencies  of 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        39 

uhich  arc  too  often  In  conflict  with  the  soul's 
aspirations.  In  this  respect  his  situation  is 
not  changed.  What  was  called  concupiscence 
before  Baptism  may  still  be  so  termed.  But 
henceforth  the  spirit  of  Jesus  dwells  in  His 
faithful  disciple  and  causes  him  to  live  with 
His  life ;  the  struggle  is  no  longer  between 
powerless  reason  and  the  flesh, — pride,  anger, 
luxury, — which  dragged  it  into  sin ;  it  is  be- 
tween the  spirit  which  is  in  him,  a  principle  of 
action  which  theologians  called  grace,  and 
these  same  evil  tendencies.  Moreover,  an 
assurance  of  victory  is  given.  The  Christian 
must  have  full  confidence.  If  God  has  granted 
him  such  means  of  salvation,  it  shows  that  He 
wishes  to  save  him. 

This  is,  briefly  stated,  the  economy  of  sal- 
vation to  w^hich  Luther  opposes  his  precise 
negation  already  in  1515.  The  new  idea  of 
his  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Ro- 
mans, Denifle  and  Ficker  agree,  is  the  iden- 
tification of  concupiscence  with  sin.  This  fun- 
damental idea  of  the  system  of  theology, 
which  was  taking  shape,  had  not  been  ex- 
pressed in  his  earlier  writings,  but  it  is  as- 
serted at  the  beginning  of  the  Commentary 
and  runs  all  through  it.  The  sinfulness  of 
concupiscence  is,  he  maintains,  the  principal 
doctrine  of  St.  Paul;  the  Apostle's  chief  aim 
is  to  establish  the  necessity  of  Christ's  right- 
eousness for  the  destruction  of  sin  by  making 
all  recognize  that  they  are  sinners. 


40        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

The  main  point  and  intention  of  the  Apostle 
in  this  Epistle  is  to  destroy  self-righteousness 
and  reliance  on  one's  own  wisdom,  and  to  con- 
struct, increase,  and  magnify  sins  and  folly, 
which  were  not  (i.  e.,  not  thought  to  be,  on 
account  of  our  good  opinion  of  ourselves)  ;  his 
purpose,  I  say,  is  to  make  us  realize  that  sins 
still  exist,  that  they  are  great  and  numerous, 
and  thus  to'  bring  home  to  us  our  need  of  Christ 
and  His  righteousness.^ 

In  the  gloss,  he  uses  the  plural  sins,  but  in 
the  Scholia  the  singular  is  employed: 

The  supreme  object  of  this  Epistle  is  to  de- 
stroy, etc.  .  .  .  and  to  plant  and  constitute  and 
magnify  sin  (although  this  was  not  or  was  not 
thought  to  be).- 

We  shall  see  more  clearly,  as  we  proceed, 
that  this  sin  is  concupiscence.  However  one 
scrutinizes  Luther's  propositions,  he  will 
come  to  this  fundamental  point  of  his  sys- 
tem: concupiscence  is  a  sin  of  our  nature' 
which  nothing  removes.  Neither  Baptism  nor 
Penance  change  anything.  We  are  sinners 
and  must  acknowledge  it.  Therein  lies  our 
only  hope  of  salvation.  If  we  are  very  hum- 
ble, if  we  confess  our  sin,  if  we  have  con- 
fidence in  Christ,  and  if  nevertheless  we  resign 
ourselves  willingly  to  damnation,  in  case  it 
should  be  God's  will,  we  shall  be  saved. 

1  F.g.,  p.  1.  2  F.  1. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        41 

There  is  still  some  indecision  as  regards 
the  proposed  remedy.  Most  frequently  it  is 
humility,  which  is  always  on  Luther's  lips, 
and  already  it  is  faith,  understood  as  per- 
sonal assurance  of  salvation.  But  what  is 
settled  from  the  start,  and  what  is  affirmed 
with  ever-growing  confidence,  is  the  irremedi- 
able corruption  of  our  nature.  We  are  sin- 
ners, hence  we  do  not  possess  righteousness, 
nor  anything  to  make  us  agreeable  to  God. 
By  the  sin  of  Adam  it  was  human  nature 
itself  that  was  vitiated.  It  became  incapable 
of  doing  good.  If  it  tries,  it  but  adds  pre- 
sumption and  insolence  to  its  powerlessness. 
To  endeavor  to  perform  good  works  is  to  sin 
more  and  more  irremissibly. 

This  radical  pessimism  must  lead  to 
despair.  Luther  understands  the  danger  and 
he  offers  deliverance.  To  those  who  are  hum- 
ble God  does  not  impute  sin.  Sin  remains, 
the  fundamental  thesis  requires  this,  but  it 
is  not  an  obstacle  to  salvation.  Every  sin  is, 
however,  essentially  mortal,  so  contaminated 
is  the  source  of  our  actions.  But  our  sin  is 
imputed  by  God  as  venial.  What  is  more,  to 
those  who  believe,  faith  is  imputed  as  right- 
eousness. We  are  then  sinners  but,  at  the 
same  time,  if  we  have  faith,  we  are  righteous, 
although,  strictly  speaking,  only  in  hope. 
Righteousness  will  not  be  conferred  on  us 
until  the  moment  of  our  death.  Righteous 
and  sinners — a  paradoxical  antithesis,  which 


42        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

delights  Luther  and  which  he  develops  with 
endless  variations. 

He  triumphs,  for  he  possesses  at  last  the 
means  to  crush  pride,  to  make  man  withdraw 
into  the  mire  of  liis  sin  to  bring  him  back 
into  the  way  of  salvation.  Yes,  he  is  deeply 
convinced  that  all  theology  was  astray,  that 
men  were  deceiving  themselves  in  seeking  sal- 
vation by  good  works,  that  they  must  restore 
to  God  all  His  rights,  abase  themselves  be- 
fore Him  as  the  only  righteous  One,  yield 
themselves  to  Him  as  alone  able  to  perform 
good  actions  in  them,  render  Him  glory  by 
going  with  docility  to  the  goal  to  which  He 
leads  them,  blessedness  or  damnation. 

Human  liberty  disappeared — even  human 
activity — in  a  pessimistic  quietism. 

Now  it  is  certain  that  the  source  of  this 
false  mysticism  is  not  in  St.  Paul.  A  few 
belated  orthodox  Lutherans  still  maintain 
that  it  is ;  but  more  and  more  numerous  in 
German  universities  are  the  professors  of 
theology,  that  is  to  say,  of  Biblical  exegesis, 
who  no  longer  seek  to  find  Lutheranism  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  or  any  part  of  the 
Scriptures.  It  is  true  that  both  Testaments 
proclaim  that  man  is  a  sinner.  This  is  a 
confession  which  mystics  have  ever  found 
sweet,  but  without  denying  that  God  gives 
grace  when  He  pardons.  One  of  the  Psalms 
congratulates  the  man  to  whom  God  "does 
not  impute  his  sin."     But  it  was  understood 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        43 

tliat  God's  attitude  means  that  the  sin  is 
forgiven.  And  if  St.  Paul  repeats  after 
Genesis  that  the  faith  of  Abraham  "was 
reputed  to  him  unto  justice,"  it  is  but  an  ex- 
pression cited  in  passing,  such  as  it  stands, 
which  must  be  understood  according  to  the 
general  spirit  of  his  teaching.  Now  if  the 
modern  rationalistic  critics  considered  them- 
selves authorized  to  address  reproaches  to  St. 
Paul,  they  would  say  that  he  exaggerated  the 
splendor  of  the  gift  of  God  in  the  Christian 
soul.  For  him  Christian  life,  far  from  being 
a  prolongation  of  the  life  of  sin,  is  such  an 
evident  transformation  that  more  than  one 
non-Catholic  exegete  qualifies  it  as  a  magical 
effect.  This  is  assuredly  going  too  far,  or 
rather  it  is  putting  it  badly  ;  but  the  qualifica- 
tion allows  us  to  measure  the  distance  between 
an  unbiased  interpretation  and  that  which 
Luther  imposed  upon  his  followers. 

The  question  now  arises  more  definitely: 
How  did  this  doctrine,  the  novelty  of  which  no 
one  should  doubt,  take  possession  of  Luther's 
mind   and   inspire   such   absolute   conviction.'^ 

There  exists  Luther's  own  explanation, 
given  towards  the  end  of  his  life,  in  1545,  in 
the  preface  of  his  Latin  works.  Here  he  de- 
scribes with  complacency  the  manner  in  which 
God  gave  him  light : 

I  was  burning  with  the  desire  to  understand 
St.  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans.     Ardor  was 


44        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

not  lacking^  but  I  was  ever  coming  in  collision 
with  this  expression  of  the  first  chapter  of 
RomanS;,  "In  the  Gospel  is  revealed  the  justice 
of  God."  1 

I  hated  the  words  "justice  of  God/'  which  I 
had  learned  from  the  usage  of  all  doctors  to 
understand  in  the  philosophical  sense.  I 
thought  it  meant  what  they  call  formal  or 
active  justice,  that  with  which  God  is  just 
when  He  punishes  sinners  and  the  unright- 
eous. 

Notwithstanding  the  irreproachable  character 
of  my  life  as  a  monk,  I  felt  that  I  was  a  sinner 
before  God  and  my  conscience  was  uneasy. 
Were  the  satisfactions  which  I  offered  God  suf- 
ficient to  appease  Him.'*  I  had  no  certitude 
that  they  were.  So  I  did  not  love  this  just  and 
avenging  God.  ...  I  was  troubled  in  con- 
science and  I  ceaselessly  applied  myself  to  this 
passage  of  Paul  in  the  keen  desire  to  know 
what  it  meant. 

I  thus  meditated  day  and  night,  until  God 
had  pity  on  me.  I  gave  attention  to  the  con- 
nection of  these  words:  "The  justice  of  God  is 
revealed  in  the  Gospel,  as  it  is  written:  the  just 
man  shall  live  by  faith,"  and  I  perceived  that 
the  justice  of  God  must  be  understood  of  the 
justice  which  God  imparts,  that  by  which  the 
just  man  lives,  that  is  to  say,  faith.  The  mean- 
ing of  the  sentence  was  then:  The  justice  which 
is  revealed  in  the  Gospel  is  passive  justice,  by 

1  The  Vulgate  term  justitia  is  rendered  by  the 
word  justice  in  the  Douay  Bible;  and  in  Catholic 
theological  works  justice  is  used  frequently  in  the 
broad  sense  of  rtp/iYeowsnes^.— Translator's  note. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        45 

which  God  in  His  mercy  justifies  us  by  means 
of  faith.  At  once  I  felt  myself  born  to  a  new 
life.  It  seemed  to  me  that  the  gate  of  Paradise 
opened  wide  before  me. 

Henceforth  Scripture  took  on  a  new  aspect. 
...  I  next  read  De  Spiritu  et  litera.  Contrary 
to  my  expectation  I  found  that  Augustine 
understood,  like  myself,  by  the  justice  of  God 
that  with  which  God  clothes  us  when  He  justi- 
fies us. 

Would  that  Luther  had  made  no  other  dis- 
covery ! 

We  know  through  the  labors  of  Father 
Denifle  that  before  the  time  when  Luther 
wrote,  sixty-six  Latin  commentators,  in  works 
printed  or  in  manuscript,  had  given  the 
words  in  Romans  1 .  17  this  interpretation. 
And  if  any  one  (several  modern  writers  have 
done  so)  took  the  words  "justice  of  God"  to 
mean  not  the  justice  communicated  but  the 
divine  attribute  of  justice,  absolutely  no  one 
had  ever  understood  it  of  the  avenging  jus- 
tice. Where  then  did  Luther  get  the  opin- 
ion of  "all  the  doctors".'^  And  if  he  was  mis- 
taken about  this  point,  he  may  well  have  been 
niistaken  in  a  different  way  when  he  at- 
tributed to  himself  an  interpretation  which  he 
would  only  subsequently  have  found  in  Au- 
gustine. 

The  facts  are  so  clear  that  one  might 
ask  if  Father  Denifle  had  not  taken  too  much 
trouble  to  establish  them.     But  it  is  doubtful 


46        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

whether  Luther's  admirers  would  have  laid 
down  their  arms  in  presence  of  a  less  con- 
vincing demonstration  of  the  levity  with  which 
the  Reformer  related  his  personal  histoiy. 
We  still  read  in  Mr.  Ficker:  "It  matters  ht- 
tle  for  our  appreciation  of  Luther  that  nearly 
all  (?)  previous  commentators  understood 
Romans  1 .  17  in  the  same  way,  as  Father 
Denifle  has  proved  with  meritorious  exacti- 
tude and  wealth  of  evidence.  The  new  (  !) 
interpretation  impressed  him  only  when  read 
in  Augustine.  And  that  is  on  the  whole 
what  is  decisive."  ^  It  is,  then,  Paul  inter- 
preted by  Augustine  who  would  have  made 
an  impression  on  Luther.  But  Mr.  Ficker 
knows  that  the  dominant  idea  of  the  system 
came  before  he  learned  it  from  Augustine. 
What  suggested  it.^^ 

Victorious  concupiscence.  Father  Denifle 
has  answered.  When  Luther  entered  the 
cloister  with  the  purpose  of  sanctifying  him- 
self, he  was  too  much  inbued  with  the  teach- 
ings of  Occam.  He  fancied  that  holiness  de- 
pended exclusively  on  his  own  efforts.  This 
notion,  which  he  held  in  good  faith,  had  to 
give  way.  Concupiscence  proved  too  strong 
for  him ;  he  concluded  that  it  was  invincible 
and  consequently  that  it  was  impossible  to 
keep  the  commandments. 

This  invincible  concupiscence  he  identified 
with  original  sin,  and  he  sought  salvation, 
1  F.  79. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        47 


which  he  was  unwilling  to  give  up,  only  in 
the  righteousness  of  Christ. 

This  view  of  Father  Denifle  attributes 
nearly  everything  in  the  evolution  of  Luther's 
system  to  experience ;  he  makes  no  allowance, 
as  far  as  I  can  see,  for  the  direct  influence  of 
St.  Paul  upon  it.  Under  the  discouragement 
of  a  fall,  Luther  framed  a  theory  which 
would  help  him  out  of  his  difficulties.  Father 
Denifle  notes  the  time  when  the  identifica- 
tion of  concupiscence  and  original  sin  ap- 
pears ;  he  exposes  Luther's  state  of  soul, 
and,  concurrently,  the  variations  of  his  doc- 
trine. He  leaves  St.  Paul  out  of  the  ques- 
tion. 

Mr.  Jundt  likewise  insists  upon  Luther's 
moral  experience.  He  excludes,  however,  as 
might  have  been  expected,  the  notion  that 
Luther  had  sinned ;  he  even  identifies  Luther's 
experience  with  that  of  Paul.  His  last  word  is 
that:  "this  system  rests  upon  the  data  of  in- 
dividual experience  of  the  believer,  confirmed 
and  completed  by  the  testimony  of  Holy 
Writ."  ^  This  places  Scripture  in  an  Im- 
portant, though  secondary  place ;  and  such  it 
certainly  had  in  Luther's  mind. 

I  believe,  for  my  own  part,  that  Mr. 
Jundt's  formula  would  be  exact  if  only  it 
added  some  indication  of  the  fact  that  it  was 
not  Holy  Writ  itself,  but  Holy  Writ  as  it  was 
understood  by  Luther,  that  confirmed  his  in- 
1  L.  1,  p.  156. 


rom 


48        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

dividual  experience.   Lutheranism  issued  fi 
its  author's  personal  dispositions,  and   f 
his   misinterpretation   of   the   Epistle   to   the 
Romans. 

It  is  not  merely  by  logical  deduction  that 
both  Catholic  and  Protestant  theologians 
have  recognized  the  important  part  pla^'cd 
by  individual  experience  in  Luther's  doctrine. 
His  passionate  personality  reveals  itself  fre- 
quently. Later  on  he  will  speak  of  adopting 
some  point  to  annoy  the  Pope.  But  already 
in  the  Commentary  he  writes : 

God  so  acts  in  all  the  Saints,  that  He  causes 
them  to  do  with  their  own  will  what  they  desire 
supremely.  Philosophers  wonder  at  the  con- 
trariety, and  men  do  not  understand.  There- 
fore, I  have  said  that  it  will  never  be  known 
except  by  practice  and  experience. 

This  is  what  mystics  teach  concerning 
supernatural  states  ;  but  he  adds : 

If  in  law,  which  is  the  teaching  of  a  shadowy 
justice,  practice  is  necessary,  how  much  more 
in  theology !  ^ 

Here  we  see  the  intention  to  regulate  the- 
ology according  to  personal  experience,  which 
means  according  to  the  disposition  of  the 
heart  and  the  mind,  in  the  moral  and  in  the 
intellectual  order. 

IF.  271. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        49 

2.    The  Moral  Dispositions  of  Luther 

What  strikes  one  most  in  the  moral  dispo- 
sitions of  Luther  is,  as  Father  Denifle  has 
well  seen,  the  constant  and  tormenting  pre- 
occupation about  concupiscence,  the  notion 
he  has  of  its  power,  of  its  ceaselessly  renewed 
forces.  When  he  takes  up  this  subject  his 
style  becomes  passionate,  reflecting  the  vicis- 
situdes of  a  tragic  conflict. 

Already  in  1514,  in  his  Dictation  on  the 
Psalter,  Luther  wrote: 

The  passion  of  anger^  pride^  lust,  when  ab- 
sent, is  easily  presumed  to  be  conquered  by 
those  lacking  experience;  but  when  it  is  pres- 
ent, it  is  felt  to  be  most  powerful^  even  in- 
superable, as  experience  teaches.  And  thus 
humbled  and  weakened,  they  have  cried  unto 
the  Lord,  despairing  of  self,  hoping  in  God/ 

In  the  Commentary  he  identifies  concu- 
piscence with  original  sin  and  this  allows  him 
to  paint  it  in  most  somber  colors,  reproduc- 
ing, as  he  believes,  the  thought  of  St.  Paul 
and  the  Fathers.  He  ends  his  analysis  with 
the  most  fearful  images  of  mythology : 

This  is  the  many-headed  hydra,  the  exceed- 
ingly pertinacious  monster,  with  which  we  fight 
in  the  Lernaean  marshes  of  this  life  until  death. 
It  is  Cerberus,  the  unrestrainable  barker,  and 
the  insuperable  Antheus  sent  down  upon  earth.' 

1  Cited  by  Denifle-Paquier,  II.,  39G.  2  F.  271. 


50        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

Apparently  it  did  not  occur  to  him  that  it 
was  more  powerful  in  himself  than  in  others, 
or  that  it  was  humiliating.  He  defies  other 
theologians  to  overcome  it,  applying  to  them 
the  term  "Sautheologen."  They  are  invited 
to  consider  themselves  and  their  own  con- 
dition. 

The  very  silly  swine  who  hold  this  view 
should  be  warned,  brought  to  shame  and  re- 
pentance, at  least  by  their  own  experience.  Be- 
cause, whether  they  will  it  or  not,  they  feel  in 
themselves  evil  desires.  Here  then  I  say:  Try 
hard,  I  beg!  Be  men!  With  all  your  might 
so  act  that  there  may  be  no  such  concupiscence 
in  you.  Endeavor  to  put  in  practice  what  you 
say,  that  God  can  be  loved  naturally,  without 
grace.  If  you  are  without  concupiscence,  we 
believe  you.  But  if  you  live  in  and  with  it, 
you  no  longer  fulfil  the  law.  For,  indeed,  the 
law  says :  "Thou  shalt  not  covet,"  but  thou 
shalt  love  God.  Can  one  who  covets  and  loves 
other  things,  really  love  God.^  But  this  con- 
cupiscence is  ever  in  us ;  consequently,  we  never 
have  the  love  of  God^  unless  it  be  begun  by 
grace,^  etc. 

This  is  not  the  place  to  show  that  the  con- 
clusion is  not  legitim.ate.  Theologians  could 
answer  that  to  feel  concupiscence  is  not  to 
yield  to  it,  not  to  entertain  desires  condemned 
by  the  law.     Luther  knew  of  this  distinction, 

IF.  110. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        51 

and  he  could  not  give  it  up  entirely  ;  he  main- 
tains, however,  that  concupiscence  itself  is  op- 
posed to  the  law.  He  repeatedly  comes  back 
upon  the  point.  And  this  opposition  of  con- 
cupiscence to  the  law  seems  to  us  to  show 
decisively  that  he  regarded  concupiscence  as 
invincible. 

Father  Denifle  has  maintained  that,  as 
early  as  1515,  Luther  held  that  the  command- 
ments could  not  be  kept,  since  concupiscence 
is  invincible.  Father  Grisar  has  denied  this, 
because  Luther  always  urged  that  men  should 
resist  concupiscence  and  keep  the  command- 
ments ;  he  only  meant  that  concupiscence  is 
ineradicable — a  perfectly  exact  statement. 

In  favor  of  his  opinion  Father  Grisar  can 
point  to  the  undeniable  fact  that  in  certain 
places  Luther  speaks  of  the  impossibility  of 
resisting  "without  the  help  of  grace."  This 
suggests  that  with  grace  one  might  resist. 
His  immoderate  statements  elsewhere  would 
be  called  forth  by  the  fact  that  the  theologians 
he  had  in  view  did  not  sufficiently  acknowl- 
edge man's  dependence  on  God's  supernatural 
assistance.  But  Father  Denifle  has  shown 
that  he  defends  the  same  doctrine  about  the 
irresistible  character  of  concupiscence  in  a 
sermon  in  w^hich  he  speaks  at  the  same  time 
of  his  hearers  and  of  himself — persons  who 
were  all  baptized  and  of  whom  at  least  a  cer- 
tain number  might  be  considered  as  under  the 
influence  of  grace. 


52        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

Here  is  the  text : 

And  if  God  imposes  upon  us  things  that  are 
impossible  and  beyond  our  strength^  nobody  is 
thereby  excused  .  .  .  consequently,  since  we 
are  carnal,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  fulfil  the 
law;  but  Christ  came  to  fulfil  alone  this  law, 
which  it  is  impossible  for  us  to  fulfil  (or  accord- 
ing to  the  edition  of  Weimar,  not  to  break). 
For  what  the  law  could  not  do,  says  the  Apos- 
tle, in  that  it  was  vitiated  (St.  Paul  says  "made 
weak")  by  the  flesh.  .  .  .  Behold  the  law  is 
impossible  on  account  of  the  flesh.  .  .  .  By  the 
law  is  knowledge  of  sin.  For  if  it  be  known 
that  by  no  device  of  our  own  and  by  no  help 
which  we  can  obtain  can  concupiscence  be  taken 
from  us,  and  if  this  concupiscence  is  against  the 
law  which  says:  "Thou  shalt  not  covet," — and 
indeed  we  do  all  know  by  experience  that  con- 
cupiscence is  invincible, — what  does  there  re- 
main for  us  ?  ^  etc. 

It  is  strange  that,  after  such  a  statement, 
it  can  still  be  asked  whether,  according  to 
Luther,  concupiscence  is  really  invincible.  He 
does  not  teach,  indeed,  that  we  are  always 
overcome  by  it ;  the  grace  of  Christ  may  pre- 
serve us  and  we  must  do  everything  for  God, 
acting   under   the   inspiration   of  the   purest 

1  Denifle-Paquier,  II..  382.  Note  1.  This  sermon 
which  Koestlin  assigned  to  St.  Stephen's  day,  1514, 
has  been  transferred  to  the  following  year  by  Deni- 
fle  precisely  because  it  reveals  the  point  which  is 
made  in  the  Commentary  on  Romans.  Ficker  and 
Jundt   admit   Denifle's   verdict. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        53 

charity.  Nevertheless,  according  to  the  new 
principles  taken  rigorously,  we  always  sin 
mortally  even  when  performing  good  works. 
Concupiscence,  which  is  in  us,  is  a  mortal  sin 
of  its  very  nature : 

As  the  baptized  person  or  the  penitent  re- 
mains in  the  weakness  of  concupiscence,  which 
nevertheless  is  against  the  law:  "Thou  shalt 
not  covet/'  and  indeed  mortal,  unless  the  merci- 
ful God  should  refrain  from  imputing  it  on 
account  of  the  cure  which  has  begun  ^  .  .  . 

Actual  sins  being  the  fruits  of  this  first  sin, 
which  is  mortal,  are  themselves  mortal,  for 
there  is  no  sin  venial  in  itself: 

Hence  it  follows  that  no  sin  is  venial  of  its 
nature.  .  .  .  Therefore  we  sin  when  we  are 
doing  good,  unless  God  through  Christ  cover 
over  the  imperfections  of  our  action  and  impute 
them  not;  sin  then  becomes  venial  by  the  mercy 
of  God  who  does  not  impute  it  to  us  ^  .  .  . 

These  expressions  seem  to  us  stronger  than 
those  in  which  Luther  declares  concupiscence 
invincible.  It  is  represented  as  affecting  and 
infesting  ever^^thing,  giving  to  all  our  actions 
its  sinful  character,  mortally  sinful  of  its  na- 
ture. If  Luther  preached  resistance  to  con- 
cupiscence, it  is  a  happy  contradiction  which 
does  him  credit  as  a  man,  though,  to  a  lesser 

1  F.  3?,2.  2  F.  123. 


54        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 


degree,  it  discredits  him  as  a  logician.  AVe 
are  not  here  concerned,  however,  with  his  con- 
tradictions. We  are  citing  his  doctrinal  pro- 
nouncements only  as  giving  an  idea  of  the 
state  of  his  soul.  It  may  be  argued  that  a 
preacher  who  declares  concupiscence  invin- 
cible, has  himself  given  way  tc  it. 

We  shall  not  dwell  on  the  other  indications 
of  moral  delinquency  which  are  alleged  by 
Father  Denifle.  He  may  be  somewhat  severe 
in  dealing  with  confessions  of  Luther  con- 
tained in  intimate  letters.  They  bear  on 
points  concerning  which  he  was  perhaps  not 
without  excuse.  That  his  too  numerous  oc- 
cupations prevented  him  from  regularly  say- 
ing his  Office  and  celebrating  Mass  ^  would 
be  an  indication  of  lukewarmness ;  but  priests 
did  not  then  say  Mass  every  day,  and  even 
now  it  is  not  a  matter  of  obligation ;  the  ob- 
ligation to  say  the  Office  was  also  less  strict 
than  it  is  now.  He  had  pretty  strong  dis- 
tractions ;  sometimes  he  had  finished  a  Psalm 
or  even  the  whole  Office  without  having  no- 
ticed whether  he  was  at  the  beginning  or  at 
the  middle  of  it.^  But  many  otherwise  good 
men  are  not  exempt  from  such  weaknesses. 
One  would  even  judge  that  he  possessed  an 
excellent  principle  of  spiritual  life  when  he 
whites :  "I  am  absolutely  certain,  knowing  it 
by  my  own  experience,  by  yours  and  by  that 

1  Denifle-Paquier,  I.,  62. 

2  Denifle-Paquier,  II.,  378. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        55 

of  everyone  whom  I  have  seen  in  disquiet, 
that  it  is  the  prudence  of  our  own  judgment 
whicli  is  the  only  cause,  tlie  only  root  of  all 
our  troubles.  For  our  eye  is  very  evil.  .  .  . 
And  to  speak  of  myself,  alas !  how  many  mis- 
eries and  troubles  have  been  caused  and  are 
still  caused  in  me  by  this  evil  eye."  Father 
Denifle,  who  cites  these  words, ^  cannot  help 
concluding:  "That  is  w^ell  said." 

The  Commentary/  contains  so  many  protes- 
tations of  complete  abandonment  to  the  will 
of  God;  it  so  urgently  recommends  leaving 
all  to  Him,  breathing  only  His  goodness  and 
His  justice;  it  contains  such  oft-repeated  and 
enthusiastic  praise  of  humility,  that  we  can 
well  understand  the  verdict  of  Father  Grisar, 
already  recorded,  that  it  does  not  convey  the 
impression  of  moral  corruption  in  its  author. 
We  are  not  easily  convinced  that  sin  and 
righteousness  exist  in  the  same  man ;  we  are 
little  inclined  to  declare  sinful  a  man  who 
loudly  proclaims  his  sin. 

It  is  nevertheless  incontestible,  as  Mr. 
Ficker  remarks,  that  preoccupation  about  hu- 
mility is  less  noticeable  as  one  advances  in 
the  Commentary?  We  shall  carefully  refrain 
from  suspecting  Luther  of  definite  falls,  for 
instance,  in  the  matter  of  chastity.     The  sus- 

1  Denifle-Paquier  II.,  378. 

2  P.  LXXXIII:  One  can  hardly  read  a  page  till 
we  come  to  Ch.  12,  without  meeting  the  word  hu- 
mility: ^or  lohat  else  but  humility  does  all  Scrip- 
ture   teach?     p.    39. 


56        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

picioii  would  be  simply  rash.  But  at  any  rate 
the  least  that  can  be  said  of  his  ardent  zeal 
is  that  it  is  bitter  and  passionate.  And  to 
come  to  a  point  which  is  capital,  whence  came 
his  tendency  to  discouragement?  Later  on 
he  used  to  describe  with  complacency  his 
despair  in  the  religious  life,  but  he  did  not 
explain  it  by  his  faults ;  he  claimed  that  it 
rose  in  him  notwithstanding  heroic  efforts  to 
attain  sanctity.  Father  Deniiie  had  brushed 
away  this  legend  of  superhuman  mortifica- 
tions. But  despair  figures  in  the  Cojnmen- 
tary  as  one  of  the  bases  of  doctrine :  a  despair 
caused  by  sins.  It  is  true  that  Luther  does 
not  speak  in  his  ow^i  name,  but  let  us  weigh 
well  his  terms : 

Temptations,  or  blasphemies  extorted  by 
the  devil,  are  first  dealt  with.  In  his  usual 
extreme  manner  he  pronounces : 

The  more  horrible  and  foul  the  blasphemy, 
the  more  agreeable  it  is  to  God  if  the  heart 
feels  that  it  does  not  will  it,  because  it  did  not 
prefer  nor  choose  it.^  Frequently  and  espe- 
cially in  our  own  times  (God)  raises  up  the 
devil,  to  cast  His  elect  into  horrible  sins  and 
domineer  over  them  a  long  while, — or  at  least 
to  impede  their  good  resolutions  and  lead  them 
to  do  the  contrary  of  what  they  intended;  this 
He  does  to  make  them  realize  by  experience 
that  it  is  not  they  who  will  and  run.  And 
nevertheless    by    all     these    means    He    brings 

1  F.  227.     So  far  what  Lutlier  says  is  true. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        51 

tlicm  out  of  captivity  in  an  unexpected  way, 
while  they  are  groaning  in  despair  because  they 
will  do  and  actually  do  so  many  evil  things,  and 
do  not  actually  do  nor  will  to  do  many  things 
which  they  will.  This  comes  about  "that  He 
may  show  forth  His  power  and  that  His  name 
may  be  proclaimed  in  all  the  earth."  ^ 

Where  did  Luther  get  this  information: 
that  sin,  even  mortal  sin,  may  be  conducive 
to  salvation — very  indirectly  ! — by  the  hu- 
miliation which  it  causes,  had  been  taught  .'^ 
But  the  case  is  totally  different  here.  It  is 
God  who  so  tries  His  elect,  who  brings  them 
into  the  state  of  despair  from  which  He  saves 
them.  Yes,  yes,  so  it  is,  Luther  concludes, 
as  if  his  own  assertion  had  particular  bearing. 
And  why  this  divine  pedagogy  by  sin,  espe- 
cially "in  our  own  times,"  if  not  because  it 
preluded  to  the  great  designs  which  Luther 
was  already  fostering.^ 

However,  whether  or  not  the  Reformer's 
discouragement  was  occasioned  by  his  falls 
is  after  all  God's  secret,  and  it  is  not  what 
matters  most  in  our  inquiry. 

He  is  not  the  first  who  was  violently  tried 
by  concupiscence.  A  Saint  Vincent  Ferrier 
compares  it  to  a  quagmire ;  he  resigned  him- 
self to  living  in  its  neighborhood,  distressed 
by  its  fetid  odor,  though  he  did  not  resign 
himself  to  live  in  the  mud  in  order  the  better 
to  do  homage  to  grace.  Many  sons  of  Adam, 
iF.  228. 


58        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

even  members  of  religious  orders,  have  given 
way  to  evil  tendencies.  Some  have  remained 
vanquished,  others  have  arisen.  The  former 
have  not  claimed  to  be  righteous,  the  latter 
have  longed  to  be  freed  from  sin.  None  have 
thought  it  possible  for  sin  and  righteousness 
to  coexist  in  a  man.  This  is  what  distin- 
guishes Luther's  position. 

The  view  Luther  adopted  might  be  well 
explained  as  the  solution  offered  by  pride  in 
presence  of  a  fall.  The  pride  of  a  monk,  who 
has  aspired  to  holiness,  revolts  at  the  fact 
that,  instead  of  being  spiritual,  he  has  proved 
himself  no  better  than  a  vulgar  sinner.  In 
the  case  of  an  ordinary  proud  man  it  will  be 
sufficient  to  deny  the  gravity  of  the  fault. 
After  all,  he  will  say,  it  was  not  a  mortal  sin. 
But  in  the  case  of  a  man  whose  nature  is  ex- 
tremely rich  and  resourceful,  if  pride  is  strong 
enough  to  assert  itself,  even  when  there  is  an 
evident  sin,  the  conclusion  will  be  that  the 
temptation  to  which  he  succumbed  was  invin- 
cible. If  he  fall,  anybody  would  have  fallen. 
Nature  is  so  evil.  He  despairs  of  doing  oth- 
erwise;  and  instead  of  seeking  to  recover  jus- 
tice by  the  humble  avowal  that  he  was  wa'ong, 
that  it  is  his  own  fault,  he  gives  up  righteous- 
ness. He  settles  dowm  in  sin,  protesting  with 
false  humility  that  this  is  where  he  belongs. 
There  is  no  shame  in  being  like  everybody 
else. 

But  if  this  explanation  is  plausible  one  can 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        50 

likewise  adopt  the  hypothesis  that  sin  was  not, 
or  at  least  not  frequently,  consiniimated.  In 
certain  religious,  the  very  realization  that 
they  are  subject  to  an  ever-reviving  concu- 
piscence may  produce  the  impression  of  pain- 
ful surprise.  The  grace  of  the  beginnings 
may  have  been  sensible  enough  to  reduce  "the 
flesh"  to  silence.  It  -was  thought  conquered. 
Sin  had  no  right  to  enter  the  cloister.  Then 
one  day  it  reappears.  It  redoubles  its  at- 
tacks. It  is  more  formidable  than  ever.  Has 
there  been  a  mistake  in  embracing  a  religious 
life?  There  is  never  lacking  an  experienced 
spiritual  father  to  teach  the  novice  the  dif- 
ference between  the  first  stings  and  full  con- 
sent. But  the  struggle  becomes  in  time 
fatiguing  and  humiliating;  concupiscence 
puts  itself  forward  as  impudent  as  it  is  in- 
destiTictible.  If  good  w^orks  do  not  dehver 
us  from  this  domestic  enemy,  what  is  the  use 
of  good  ^vorks?  There  is  grace.  But  grace, 
too,  is  apparently  powerless.  After  confes- 
sion, which  should  have  restored  grace  if  it 
had  been  lost,  one  is  no  better  than  before. 
One  is  apt  to  despair  of  God's  goodness,  un- 
less he  is  very  humble. 

It  is  possible  that  Luther  exaggerated  the 
effect  w^hich  his  religious  profession  was  to 
produce  in  the  soul.  "And  truly,"  he  wrote 
in  1533,  "I  rejoiced  at  having  become  such 
an  excellent  man,  at  having,  by  one  act,  ren- 
dered  myself   so  beautiful   and   holy.   ...   I 


60        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 


admired  myself  as  a  being  capable  of  mira- 
cles, able  to  make  one  mouthful  of  death  and 
the  devil."  1 

This  is  undoubtedly  an  exaggeration. 
Father  Denifle  has  demonstrated  that  the 
teaching  of  the  Middle  Ages  was  not  respon- 
sible for  it.  But  how  could  one  who  was  so 
extreme  in  everything  fail  to  exaggerate,  in 
the  beginning,  the  graces  of  the  religious 
life  or  the  sensible  effect  of  Christian  grace  .f^ 
We  know,  from  the  evidence  of  the  Commen- 
tary, how  much  he  exaggerated  in  those  days 
the  grace  of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance : 

Hence  I  was  so  stupid  as  not  to  be  able  to 
understand  that  I  should  esteem  myself  a  sinner 
like  others  and  prefer  myself  to  no  one  when^ 
with  contrition,  I  had  made  my  confession;  for 
then  I  thought  everything  removed  and  done 
away  with,  even  within.^ 

Again  I  have  no  trouble  to  believe  him  when 
he  says  that  he  exaggerated  the  action  of 
temptations  in  his  soul : 

As  a  monk  I  thought  salvation  impossible 
when  I  felt  the  concupiscence  of  the  flesh,  that 
is,  an  evil  movement,  whether  of  lust  or  of  an- 
ger or  of  envy,  against  a  brother,  etc.  I  tried 
many  things,  I  went  to  confession  every  day, 
etc.  But  nothing  gave  me  relief  because  the 
concupiscence  of  the  flesh  always  came  back. 
Therefore  I  could  not  rest,  but  was  ever  tor- 
1  Jundt,  p.  45.  2  F.  109. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        61 

mented  by  these  thoughts:  "Thou  hast  commit- 
ted this  or  that  sin/'  or  again^  "Thou  art  under 
the  domination  of  envy,  impatience/'  etc.  "It  is 
then  in  vain  that  thou  hast  entered  into  this 
state  of  life,  and  all  thy  good  works  are  use- 
less." ^ 

In  such  a  case  scruples  may  lead  to  despair, 
just  as  surely  as  actual  sins,  especially  when 
the  victim  is  not  humble  and  has  had  too 
much  reliance  on  his  own  efforts.  This  is 
what  happened  in  the  case  of  Luther,  if  we 
may  accept  the  testimony  of  a  letter  dating 
from  the  same  time  as  the  Commentary,  at  a 
moment  when  this  error  had  given  rise  to  an 
extreme  reaction : 

In  our  day  there  is  a  great  temptation  to  pre- 
sumption in  many  souls,  particularly  in  those 
who  are  endeavoring  with  all  their  strength  to 
be  righteous  and  good;  ignoring  the  justice  of 
God,  which  is  given  us  in  Christ  most  abun- 
dantly and  gratuitously,  they  seek  of  themselves 
to  act  righteously  until  they  may  confidently 
stand  before  God  adorned  with  virtues  and 
merits,  which  is  impossible.  Thou  wast  while 
amongst  us  in  this  opinion,  or  rather  error;  I 
was  myself,  and  even  now  I  am  struggling 
against  such  a  view,  without  having  yet  over- 
come it. 

A  man  of  Luther's  temperament  was  bound 
to  turn  about  completely  and  to  grapple  with 

1  In  the  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians 
(1535),  in  Denifle-Paquier,  II.,  389,  note  2. 


62        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

those  who  had,  he  thought,  led  him  into  error. 
And  indeed  he  does  not  cease  his  invectives 
against  those  whom  he  calls  justitiarii.  His 
disillusionment  must  have  been  deep  and 
painful.  Despair  caused  by  scruples  explains 
less  clearly  than  would  more  positive  infideli- 
ties how  he  came  to  adopt  as  a  remedy  the 
declaration  that  he  was  a  sinner;  but  the 
hypothesis  of  scruples  cannot  be  rejected  ab- 
solutely. 

In  a  word,  in  the  system,  of  Father  Denifle, 
everything  unfolds  logically.  Luther,  having 
become  a  sinner,  decides  to  acknowledge  that 
he  is  such  and  to  adapt  to  the  situation  a 
religious  doctrine,  the  starting  point  of  which 
was  invincible  concupiscence. 

The  weak  point  of  this  moral  evaluation  is 
precisely  that  it  is  too  logical.  Father 
Denifle,  who  has  followed  Luther  from  con- 
tradiction to  contradiction,  might  have  cred- 
ited him  with  a  few  more  contradictions  and 
with  some  of  those  exaggerations  which  recur 
so  naturally  under  his  pen. 

In  the  hypothesis  of  scruples,  bringing  on 
discouragement,  one  must  explain  how  Luther, 
already  inclined  to  confuse  concupiscence  and 
sin,  came  to  a  definite  assertion  of  their 
identity. 

Besides,  both  in  the  view  that  Luther's 
doctrine  was  occasioned  by  his  sin  and  in  the 
view  that  it  grew  out  of  scruples,  there  would 
remain  the  question  why  he  identified  concu- 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        63 

piscence  with  original  sin,  or,  rather,  since 
theology  recognized  that  concupiscence  is  an 
effect  of  original  sin,  why  he  became  so  cer- 
tain, contrary  to  tlie  doctrine  of  the  Church, 
that  this  sin  is  not  remitted  in  Baptism.  It 
is  here  that  he  alleges  St.  Paul.  But  before 
weighing  his  arguments,  we  must  call  atten- 
tion to  other  dispositions  of  his  mind  which 
inclined  him  to  a  new  meaning  foreign  to 
that  of  the  Apostle — namely,  his  ability  to 
hold  contrary  and  even  contradictory  ideas 
and  his  lack  of  moderation. 

3.   Ability  to  Hold  Contradictory 
Opinions 

It  is  very  true,  as  Mr.  Jundt  remarks,  that 
Luther  had  a  passion  for  the  absolute.  But 
when  he  adds  that,  "like  the  Apostle,  he  had 
a  mind  which  was  all  of  a  piece  and  whose 
first  need  was  logic,"  he  is  confusing  the  re- 
quirements of  a  mind  formed  by  Graeco-Ro- 
man  discipline  and  that  German  knack  of 
combining  contradictions  which  Luther  in- 
stalled in  the  religious  order  long  before  it 
appeared  in  the  philosophy  of  Hegel  and 
Schelling.  His  love  of  reality  does  not,  in- 
deed, exclude  a  certain  headlong  logic  which 
goes  as  far  as  it  can — a  logic  which  allows 
him,  at  the  end  of  his  reasoning,  resignedly 
to  retain  contrary,  if  not  contradictory,  no- 
tions.    Theology,  which  had  little  by  little 


64        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 


assimilated  the  philosophy  of  Aristotle,  had 
become  accustomed  to  the  distinction  of  con- 
cepts inaugurated  by  Socrates.  This  power 
of  clear  and  definite  distinction  is  the  most 
solid  characteristic  of  the  Latin  genius,  of 
great  value  so  long  as  it  is  exercised  on  con- 
cepts which  are  not  empty  but  which  corre- 
spond to  things.  It  is  true  that  the  nomi- 
nalists, regarding  concepts  as  mere  creations 
of  reason,  multiplied  them  in  an  arbitrary 
way  and  indulged  complacently  in  the  mental 
exercise  of  opposing  them  one  to  another  and 
bringing  them  into  collision,  of  analyzing 
everything  in  a  most  rigorous  manner.  More- 
over, they  were  not  satisfied  with  a  consid- 
eration of  what  God  had  done,  but  must  con- 
cern themselves  with  equal  strenuosity  about 
what  He  might  have  done.  They  had  de- 
parted from  the  solid  ground  of  realities. 
Luther  energetically  brushes  aside  these 
spider  webs.  He  means  to  find  man  as  he  is, 
mind  and  flesh,  instead  of  a  synoptical  table 
of  the  predicaments,  in  the  order  of  nature 
and  in  the  order  of  grace. 

It  was,  if  you  like,  his  stroke  of  genius  to 
have  understood  the  aspirations  of  his  time. 
Simplification,  a  return  to  common  sense,  a 
language  which  all  could  understand,  that  is 
what  is  ahvays  sure  of  success  with  the  masses. 
The}^  understand  only  later  on  that  the 
would-be  simplifiers  have  been  doing  a  work 
of  destruction,  and  that  it  is  self-delusion  to 


Lnther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        65 

pretend  to  do  away  with  mysteries  wliile  at- 
tempting to  preserve  religion.  But  in  the 
meanwhile  the  shock  of  antitheses  is  not  dis- 
pleasing, and  the  masses  heartily  applaud 
one  who  attacks  distinctions  which  they  can- 
not grasp. 

If  the  interlocutors  of  Socrates,  daring  and 
practical,  armed  with  common  sense  and  cur- 
rent ideas — if  a  Thrasybulus  and  a  Callicles 
might  count  on  the  votes  of  the  Athenians  by 
preferring  solid  reasons  to  concepts  founded 
on  distinctions,  Luther  was  sure  to  please  a 
much  coarser  public,  when  he  attacked  the 
subtleties  of  scholasticism. 

In  the  Commentary,  the  tendencies  of 
which  are  ultramystical,  one  perceives  this 
note,  already  rationalistic,  which  would  take 
account  only  of  notions  that  clearly  corre- 
spond with  realities. 

The  religious  problem,  Luther  tells  us,  will 
not  be  solved  by  disputing  about  the  contrary 
appetites,  or  about  forms  which  succeed  one 
another  In  the  faculties :  man  is  one,  and  it  is 
he  who  is  sick.  The  text  is  not  lacking  in 
savor : 

Hence  appears  the  frivolous  and  delirious 
character  of  the  conduct  of  metaphysical  theo- 
logians, who  dispute  about  contrary  appetites, 
as  to  whether  they  can  be  in  the  same  subject, 
and  deal  with  the  spirit,  that  is  to  say,  the  rea- 
son, as  a  thing  apart,  with  an  absolute,  com- 
plete and  perfect  being,  and  in  like  manner  with 


66        Lidher  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

the  sensuality  or  the  flesh  as  another  thing  com- 
plete and  absolute^  and  are  made  to  forget  by 
their  absurd  fancies  that  the  flesh  is  the  weak- 
ness itself,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  wound  of  the 
whole  man,  whom  grace  has  begun  to  heal  in 
his  spirit  or  reason.^ 

A  house  which  is  being  restored  is  a  ruined 
house,  not  a  ruin  and  a  house. 

There  is  something  seductive  in  the  appeal 
to  current  notions  and  to  the  common  sense 
against  the  invasion  of  an  artificial  dialectics : 

Their  imagination  was  noxiously  employed 
when  they  followed  Aristotle  in  teaching  ^vith 
metaphorical  words  that  virtues  and  vices  inhere 
in  the  soul  like  whiteness  in  a  wall,  writing  on 
a  tablet,  and  form  in  a  subject," 

In  denying  the  distinction  between  the  soul 
and  its  faculties,  Luther  was  very  near  the 
denial  of  grace  and  charity,  which  God  de- 
posits in  them.     But  let  us  not  anticipate. 

A  Latin  mind  might  experience  the  same 
tendencies  to  simplification,  but  it  would  re- 
main fixed  in  negation ;  it  would  not  try,  once 
it  bad  destroyed  the  supernatural,  to  get  it 
back  by  associating  contradictory  concepts. 
Luther,  however,  was  disposed  to  this  latter 
course.  It  was  useless  to  show  that  in  bis 
system  God  at  the  same  time  wills  and  does 
not  will  evil,  that  man  is  at  the  same  time 
righteous  and  a  sinner.  He  was  triumphant. 
iF.  180.  2F.  182. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        67 

He  had  n  doctrine  which  is  inaccessible  to 
the  stupid.  He  was  intoxicated  with  an- 
titheses which  he  pretended  to  reduce  to  unity. 
Here  are  a  few  examples,  borrowed  from  his 
religious  doctrines,  which  testify  to  the  state 
of  his  mind.  It  is  not  his  system  which  led 
him  into  involuntary  contradictions ;  he  will- 
ingly accepted  them: 

They  are  still  unlearned,  who  remove  from 
God  the  will  of  evil,  lest  they  be  forced  to  con- 
cede that  he  sins.^  .  .  .  This  proposition  is 
true:  God  wills  what  is  evil  and  sinful,  as  well  as 
this :  God  understands  what  is  evil  and  sinful.  .  .  . 
These  things  are  true:  God  wills  what  is  bad, 
God  wills  what  is  good;  God  does  not  will  what 
is  bad,  God  does  not  will  what  is  good. 

Evidently,  when  dealing  with  the  nature  of 
God,  our  poor  little  intellect  is  very  much  em- 
barrassed. If  it  is  wise,  it  has  no  illusions 
about  the  insufficiency  of  its  affirmations,  but 
it  does  its  best,  not  to  define  God,  but  to  avoid 
destroying  itself  by  contradictions.  For 
Luther  this  was  the  supreme  exercise. 

This  juggling  excites  the  indignation  of 
the  honest  soul  of  Father  Denifle.  He  ex- 
claims, *'It  would  make  one's  hair  stand  on 
end,"  on  reading  Luther's  remark. 

Real  chastity  is  in  luxury,  and  the  more  filthy 
the  luxury,  the  more  beautiful  the  chastity.- 

IF.  22. 

2  In  1518,  Denifle-Paquier,  II.,  404,  n.  2. 


68        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

No,  it  simply  makes  one  smile.  The  mas- 
ter is  exhibiting  his  dexterity,  as  he  already 
does  in  his  Commentary : 

Therefore,  for  themselves  and  in  reality  they 
are  sinners ;  for  God,  however,  on  account  of  this 
confession,  they  are  righteous;  they  are  really 
sinners,  but  by  the  accounting  of  a  merciful 
God  they  are  righteous ;  without  knowing  it,  they 
are  righteous  and,  according  to  their  knowledge, 
they  are  unrighteous;  sinners  in  reality,  right- 
eous in  hope.^ 

What  is  more,  he  supports  his  contradic- 
tions by  the  authority  of  Aristotle  "well  un- 
derstood." It  doubtless  amused  him  to  ac- 
commodate his  theory  of  justification  to  that 
of  power  and  act.  Only  with  him  it  is  the 
same  quality  which  is  at  the  same  time  in 
power  and  in  act  in  the  same  subject: 

Always  a  sinner,  always  a  penitent,  always 
righteous." 

We  know  that  Renan,  a  great  admirer  of 
German  philosophy,  was  ever  more  and  more 
prone  to  associate  the  affirmation  and  the 
negation  in  two  propositions  where  both  are 
apparently  edifying,  but  are  at  the  same 
time  of  such  a  nature  as  "to  make  one's  hair 
stand  on  end."  But  Renan  was  the  first  to 
smile  at  his  doctrines  and  at  himself ;  at  least, 

1  F.  105.  2  F.  266  f. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        G9 

lie  affected  tliis  attitude  throiifrli  deference  for 
the  Gallic  mind.     Luther  was  terribly  serious. 

4.    Lack  of  Moderation 

Foreign,  and  even  brutally  hostile,  to  the 
distinction  of  concepts,  Luther's  intelligence 
was  absolutely  devoid  of  moderation.  Mod- 
eration and  tact  would  seem  to  be  other  gifts 
come  to  us  from  the  Greeks,  were  they  not  at 
the  same  time  natural  endowments  of  the 
French  genius.  Luther  develops  all  his  pas- 
sion for  the  absolute  in  practical  judgments. 
There  is  no  half  way,  no  compromise,  no  in- 
dulgence. Here  again  we  proceed  by  ex- 
amples. 

Luther,  the  author  of  a  movement  the  most 
definite  result  of  which  is  liberty  of  inquiry, 
notably  exaggerated  the  domain  and  the  char- 
acter of  obedience.  This  is  one  of  the  most  in- 
teresting surprises  caused  by  the  publication 
of  the  Commentary.  Extreme  in  everything, 
Luther  began  by  demanding  obedience  to- 
wards all  prelates,  towards  everybody,  and 
by  giving  to  this  obedience  the  character  of 
theological  faith.  One  has  to  read  his  state- 
ments to  believe  this.  Theology,  he  tells  us, 
says  that  heretics  have  not  the  faith  because 
they  choose  what  they  believe.  The  same  is 
true  of  the  disobedient : 

In  like  manner,  the  proud  man  sets  himself 
in  opposition  in  his  mind  to  the  commandment 


70        Luiher  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

or  the  counsel  of  one  wlio  rightly  warns  him 
for  his  salvation.  Not  believing  him,  he  be- 
lieves nothing  and  all  his  faith  perishes  on  ac- 
count of  the  stubbornness  of  his  judgment.^ 

Here  faith  is  lost  by  a  refusal  to  comply 
with  a  mere  counsel.  And  Luther  was  about 
to  erect  the  whole  edifice  of  the  Reformation 
upon  faith  alone !  It  is  not  a  passing  exag- 
geration ;  he  insists  and  this,  precisel}^,  to 
show  that  we  can  be  saved  only  by  faith. 
Heretics  claim  to  believe  in  Christ,  but  they 
do  not  believe  in  what  is  His. 

What  are  they  (the  objects  of  faith)?  The 
Church,  and  every  word  that  proceeds  from  the 
mouth  of  one  of  the  Church's  prelates  or  of  a 
good  and  holy  man,  is  the  word  of  Christ,  who 
says:  "He  who  hears  you  hears  me."  Those 
consequently  who  withstanding  the  Church's 
prelates,  will  not  hear  their  word,  but  follow 
their  own  lights^  how,  I  ask,  can  they  believe 
in  Christ.?  2 

In  a  word: 

"What  is  the  mouth  of  God?  That  of  the 
priest  and  of  the  superior !  ^ 

Faith,  moreover,  extends  to  interior  illumi- 
nations. Such  being  the  nature  of  faith,  who 
can  be  sure  that  he  really  believes.''  The  only 
resource  left  is  to  cast  oneself  blindly  upon 
humility : 

1  F.  86  2  F.  88.  3  F.  89. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        71 

Since  tlic  matter  stands  thus,  we  must  liumble 
ourselves  profoundly.  Because,  since  we  cannot 
know  whether  we  live  on  every  word  of  God  and 
deny  none  (God  saying  many  things  to  us  by 
the  superior,  many  by  the  brethren,  many  in 
the  Gospel  and  the  Apostles,  many  interiorly), 
we  can  never  know  whether  we  are  justified, 
whether  we  believe.^ 

So  begins  the  joyous  message  of  Luther, 
that  second  Gospel  which  has  given  to  Chris- 
tian souls  "living  faith  in  a  God,  who, 
through  Christ,  cries  out  to  the  unhappy  soul, 
'I  am  thy  salvation,'  and  firm  confidence  that 
we  may  rest  in  God !"  ^ 

Luther  does  not  stop  at  a  confident  doubt ; 
the  excess  of  this  obdience  must,  under  pen- 
alty of  loss  of  faith,  lead  to  despair ;  and  this 
is,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  what  he  demands  as  an 
indispensable  condition  of  salvation.  To  be 
saved  one  must  renounce  all  that  is  good, 
even  salvation.  It  is  not  question  of  that 
self-abandonment  to  the  will  of  God  which 
accepts  even  the  sufferings  of  hell,  if  God  has 
so  decreed.  Beyond  this  point,  already  near 
the  brink  of  an  abyss  where  vertigo  threat- 
ens, the  Church  does  not  allow  one  to  go. 
Luther  is  not  stopped.  True  love  of  God  re- 
quires, he  holds,  that  we  resign  ourselves  to 
His  loss  not  in  a  hypothetical,  but  in  a  very 
real  way,  and  with  all  our  heart : 

1  F.  89. 

2  Harnack  cited  by  Denifie-Paquier,  II.,  3G9. 


72        Luther  on  the  Ere  of  Rerolt 

Therefore  we  must  fly  from  good  and  aece})t 
evil,  and  this,  not  only  in  word  'and  without 
meaning  it  at  heart;  but  we  must  in  a  whole- 
hearted way  profess  to  be  and  wish  to  be,  lost 
and  damned.^  .  .  . 

This  is  but  to  imitate  Christ !  Luther 
utters  tliis  blasphemy  at  a  time  when  he  still 
thinks  himself  a  submissive  son  of  the  Church. 
He  affirms  of  Christ 

that   He  really   and  truly   offered   Himself   for 
eternal  damnation  to  the  Father  for  us." 

That  settled  it.  He  had  ventured  upon  the 
leap  into  the  abyss.  But  he  reserved  an  es- 
cape for  himself,  and  on  his  return  he  brings 
confidence  with  him.  The  sincere  desire  of 
damnation  is  the  means  to  avoid  it : 

They  are  rather  damned  who  flee  from  dam- 
nation." 

How,  then,  was  the  desire  sincere?  We  do 
not  understand  him,  we  protest ;  we  accuse 
him  of  bad  faith  and  of  juggling  with  words. 
No,  it  is  the  philosophy  of  the  absolute.  We 
are  evil,  there  is  only  one  thing  to  do,  and 
that  is  to  sink  into  our  evil ;  there  we  find 
the  goodness  of  God. 

Such  disinterested  love  of  God  cannot  well 
be  satisfied  with  half-measures.     Luther  has 

1  F.  220.  2F.  218.  3  F.  218. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        73 


confessed,  we  have  seen,  distractions  in  the 
recitation  of  the  Divine  Office.  Is  one  to  be 
damned  for  such  an  offence?  Canonists  had 
reassured  the  conscience  by  requiring  only 
virtual  attention. 

A  fine  pretext  for  laziness  and  wickedness !  ^ 

In  a  really  amusing  way  he  puts  before  us 
canons  and  monks  Mho,  tranquilized  by  Canon 
Law  which  commands  them  to  "say"  or 
"lead"  the  Office  but  not  to  "pray"  it,  snore 
on  in  peace  !  ^ 

Such  sayings  are  jests  only.  But  coming 
from  Luther  they  leave  a  bitter  taste. 

Carried  away  by  the  idea  of  pure  love  he 
will  not  suffer  anybody  to  speak  of  his  rights 
and  of  justice.  It  is  the  duty  of  princes  to 
see  that  justice  is  respected  by  their  subjects ; 
but  all,  even  princes,  should  be  ready  to  sur- 
render their  rights : 

The  very  word  "justice"  so  nauseates  me, 
that  I  would  suffer  less  to  be  desjDoiled  of  my 
goods  than  to  hear  it.  It  is,  nevertheless,  al- 
ways in  the  mouth  of  the  jurists. 

IF.  288. 

2  F.  288 :  Sed  liabent  nunc  juriste  pulcram  glo- 
sam,  quia  orationes  horarias  orare  non  est  precep- 
tum,  sed  "legere"  sen  "dicere."  Sic  enim  ponderant 
canonem  in  verbis  ac  sic  securi  stertunt.  Some 
jokes  are  very  long-lived.  This  one  recalls  the  words 
of  the  dean  during  a  storm:  "This  is  no  time  to 
say  our  Office,  but  to  pray  to  God." 


74        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

Naturally,  that  is  their  function!  But 
what  a  race  they  are ! 

There  are  no  people  in  the  world  so  simple- 
minded  as  the  jurists  and  those  who  rely  on 
good  intentions,  or  iheir  proud  reason  .  .  .  All 
j  ustice  is  then  humility  ^  .  .  . 

Since  everyone  is  in  the  wrong  before  God, 
no  wrong  can  be  done  anyone;  nobody  is 
wrong  and  nobody  is  right.  Let  men  realize 
this  and  then  we  shall  have  peace : 

Thereby  is  the  cause  of  contention  taken 
away  from  all  men,  etc.^  ,  .  . 

Such  excess  could  not  be  stayed  by  texts, 
even  those  of  Scripture.  One  should  not  love 
oneself  at  all.  Nevertheless,  Scripture  says 
we  must  love  our  neighbor  as  ourselves.  It 
would  seem,  then,  obvious  that  the  love  of  self, 
proposed  as  a  standard,  is  legitimate.  What 
can  the  text  mean.?  That  one  must  cease  to 
love  oneself  to  love  one's  neighbor!  This  is 
said  in  so  many  words : 

Consequently  I  believe  that,  by  this  precept 
"as  thyself,"  man  is  not  commanded  to  love  him- 
self, but  that  by  it  that  love  is  shown  to  be 
vicious  by  which  one  in  fact  loves  himself  .  .  . 
It  is  a  self-concentrated  love,  from  which  thou 
shalt  be  freed  only  if  thou  cease  altogether  to 
love  thyself,  and,  forgetful  of  self,  love  only 
thy  neighbor.^ 

1  F.  273.  2  F.  273.  s  F.  337. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        75 

Exaggeration,  subtlety,  misinterpretation. 
.  .  .  Wliat  could  be  expected  of  an  unbridled 
mind,  which  amused  itself  in  paradox  as  in  its 
proper  element? 

Luther  had  only  contempt  for  the  simple- 
minded,  rndiores;  a  nickname  for  those  of 
good  intsntion,  boneintentionarii;  jests  for 
canons  who  snored  so  peacefully.  His  most 
violent  attacks  were  against  philosophers  and 
the  justitiarii,  who  are,  I  think,  the  represen- 
tatives of  speculative  and  moral  theology.  He 
is  resolved  to  set  up,  instead  of  a  teaching 
which  is  founded  upon  human  reason  and  aims 
at  establishing  human  justice,  a  wholly  divine 
doctrine  based  on  the  word  of  God.  He  has 
a  mission,  although,  being  still  in  the  Church, 
he  claims  that  this  mission  is  regular. 

We  have  already  spoken  of  his  hostility 
toward  philosophers,  especially  Aristotle. 
The  condemnation  is  without  appeal,  based 
upon  a  deep  knowledge  of  the  subject-matter: 

I  indeed  believe  that  I  owe  to  the  Lord  this 
service  of  barking  against  philosophy  and  urg- 
ing to  the  study  of  Sacred  Scripture.  For,  if 
anyone  without  my  experience  did  it,  he  might 
be  timid  or  might  not  be  believed.  But  I,  hav- 
ing noM^  studied  it  for  many  years,  having  ob- 
served and  listened  to  many,  see  that  it  is  a 
study  of  vanity  and  of  perdition. 

The  extent  of  these  studies  was  not  very 
great,  as  readers  of  Father  Denifle  know.   But 


76        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

let  us  take  note  of  the  motive  of  his  condem- 
nation. If  he  rejects  Aristotle,  it  is  not  that 
he  prefers  Plato  to  him,  as  did  certain  hu- 
manists ;  and  he  does  not  think  at  all  of  over- 
turning the  edifice  of  Christian  theology  in 
order  to  gain  an  advantage  for  experimental 
study.  Nothing  is  more  foreign  to  his  mind 
than  scientific  preoccupations.  Science,  too, 
nauseates  him.  He  appeals  to  things  them- 
selves in  a  passage  of  apocalyptic  beauty: 

Behold  we  value  highly  the  science  of  the 
essences,  operations  and  passions  of  things;  and 
the  things  themselves  are  ashamed  of,  and  groan 
over,  their   own   essences,   operations   and   pas- 


Things  in  St.  Paul  groan  in  expectation 
of  the  liberty  of  the  children  of  God.  Luther 
makes  of  this  voice  a  condemnation  of  science. 
The  prosopopea  is  bold  and  splendid  but  dis- 
quieting for  reason ;  it  must  sound  strange 
to  that  part  of  the  modern  world  which  is 
most  insistent  on  its  connection  with  Luther. 
And  it  is  not  merely  things  which  protest 
against  the  study  to  which  men  subject  them  ; 
what  is  decisive  is  that  the  Apostle  has  con- 
demned philosophy  in  an  absolute  way.  Al- 
ways in  the  absolute ! 

If,  indeed,  the  Apostle  had  wished  it  to  be 
understood  that  some  philosophy  was  useful  and 

IF.  199. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        11 

good,   he   would   not   have   condemned   it   abso- 
lutely.i 

Lutlicr  (lid  not,  however,  expect  to  trans- 
form the  schools  in  a  day.  The  advice  he 
gives  his  pupils  is  not  of  irreproachable 
straightforwardness.  Let  them  study  philoso- 
phy, but  as  an  error  which  must  be  refuted, 
and  in  order  not  to  be  ignorant  of  the  lan- 
guage of  the  age : 

Wherefore,  I  urge  you  all  as  strongly  as  I 
can  to  go  through  these  studies  quickly,  not 
seeking  to  establish  and  defend  them,  but  rather 
as  we  study  the  evil  arts,  that  we  may  destroy 
them,  and  errors,  that  we  may  refute  them.  In 
like  manner,  take  up  this  study  ihat  we  may 
reject  what  we  learn  thereby,  or  at  least  that 
we  may  understand  those  with  whom  it  is  neces- 
sary to  converse.  For  it  is  time  to  emancipate 
ourselves  from  other  pursuits,  that  we  may  learn 
Jesus  Christ  and  Him  crucified." 

It  is  then  Paul's  doctrine  which  shall  re- 
place the  theology  of  the  schools,  which  is 
too  much  imbued  with  philosophy.  It  must, 
above  all,  give  a  mortal  blow  to  the  pernicious 
teaching  of  the  justitiarii. 

These  latter  are  not  religious  whose  exces- 
sively zealous  observances  would  have  dis- 
gusted Luther  with  good  works.  1  meet  only 
once  with  the  word  observantes.  Luther  ad- 
dresses to  them  the  reproach  which  they  have 

1  F.  200,  On  Col.  II.,  8.  2  F.  199. 


78        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

always  drawn  upon  themselves  (and  some- 
times deserved)  from  those  who  are  more  or 
less  lukewarm  and  relaxed: 

The  observant  fight  among  themselves  for  the 
love  of  God^  but  pay  no  heed  to  the  precept  of 
charity.^ 

He  appears  to  have  been  wholly  uncon- 
cerned about  attempts  at  reformation  in  his 
order,  whose  numbers,  indeed,  were  not  con- 
siderable enough  to  draw  upon  themselves 
such  sweeping  and  violent  attacks.  No,  the 
matter  is  not  a  quarrel  between  monks ;  the 
whole  Church  is  nearly  destroyed.  She  is  the 
victim  of  a  latent  Pelagianism  which  is  held 
by  doctors  Vho  themselves  are  unconscious 
of  the  danger.  Even  the  evils  of  ecclesias- 
tical administration  come  from  it. 

Of  this  error  the  essence  is  Pelagianism.  For, 
although  there  are  at  present  no  professed  Pela- 
gians, many  are  really  such  in  their  views, 
albeit  ignorantly.^ 

And  again : 

Therefore  most  absurd  and  quite  favorable  to 
the  error  of  the  Pelagians  is  the  common  say- 
ing: "To  one  who  does  his  best  God  infallibly 
gives  grace,"  which  is  based  on  the  idea  that 
the  "one  who  does  his  best"  is  able  to  do  some- 
thing. Hence  the  whole  Church  is  nearly  sub- 
verted, namely,  by  confidence  in  this  saying.^ 
iF.  305.  2F.  322.  3  F.  323. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        79 


Concerning  the  famous  axiom:  "To  one 
who  does  his  best  God  infalHbly  gives  grace," 
Father  Denifle  has  said  all  that  is  necessary. 
He  recalls  that,  rightly  understood,  it  sup- 
poses the  action  of  what  is  called  actual  grace, 
that  is  to  say,  a  special  divine  concursus  lead- 
ing the  soul  to  sanctifying  grace.  Luther 
admitted  the  principle  in  1514,  consequently 
just  before  the  composition  of  his  Commen- 
tary.^ But  what  is  of  more  interest,  it  was 
in  a  nominalistic  sense  that  he  held  it.  Now 
the  nominalists  too  frequently  confounded  the 
general  concursus  of  God  with  the  special 
concursus  called  actual  grace,^  to  such  an 
extent  that  they  did  not  leave  in  sufficient  re- 
lief the  doctrine  concerning  God's  salutary 
action  in  salvation.  Luther  who,  as  we  have 
seen,  counted  too  much  at  first  on  his  own 
strength,  perceived  this  fact  more  or  less 
suddenly  in  the  light  of  Pauline  theology  in- 
terpreted by  St.  Augustine.  The  reaction 
was  violent ;  he  saw  everywhere  only  latent 
Pelagianism.  And  it  is  precisely  according 
to  another  nominalist  principle  that  he  sought 
a  remedy.  This  seems  very  strange  in  truth, 
but  is  it  not  one  of  the  conditions  of  our  mind 
to  use  the  resources  it  has  at  its  command.^  ^ 

1  Denifle-Paqiiier,    IL,    397,    citing   the    edition    of 
Weimar,  lY.,  262,  4. 

2  Denifle-Paquier.  III.,  pp.  166,  170,  171,  183  and  184. 

3  Ficker,  p.  LXI.:    "In  terminology  and  argnmenta- 
tion    lie    is    the    disciple    of    Occamian    nominalism; 


80        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

And  perhaps  a  more  topical  explanation  may 
be  suggested. 

Luther,  trained  in  nominalist  theology,  ex- 
perienced the  need  of  disengaging  himself 
from  it  only  when  he  felt  that  it  gave  too 
much  to  nature.  That  one  may  love  God 
above  all  things,  with  only  the  powers  of  na- 
ture, is  a  blasphemy  for  the  Augustinian 
neophyte,  who  has  measured  (and  exagger- 
ated) the  nature  of  concupiscence.  But  there 
was  in  the  theology  of  Occam  a  principle 
which  seemed  to  give  everything  to  God,  the 
principle,  namely,  which  makes  truth  depend- 
ent upon  the  good,  pleasure  of  God ;  which 
allows  for  the  simultaneous  existence  of  con- 
traries, good  and  evil,  and  which  recognizes 
in  good,  in  charity  itself,  no  other  meritorious 
value  than  the  free  acceptance  of  God.  Did 
not  Occam  say  explicitly  that  one  can  be 
agreeable  to  God,  accepted  by  Him  and  loved, 
without  any  supernatural  form  inherent  in 
the  soul?  Doubtless,  these  questions  were 
treated,  as  usual  with  Scholasticism,  in  an  ab- 
stract way,  as  pertaining  to  a  possible  order, 
which  Almighty  God  had  not  established,  and 
with  deference  to  the  actual  order,  in  which 
God  reall}'^  gives  grace.  But,  nevertheless, 
Occam  remarked  very  characteristically  that 
his  opinion  is  farthest  removed  from  the  error 

there  were  there  many  things  which  corresponded 
to  his  penetrating-  way  of  conceiving,  to  his  taste 
for  dash,  antithesis,  paradoxes." 


Luther  on  the  Ere  of  Rerolt        81 


of  Pcla^Ius.^  And,  indeed,  is  not  God  tluis 
made  freer  and  salvation  more  gratuitous? 
Eve*i  if  you  are  clotlied  witli  grace,  He  can 
refuse  to  accept  your  dispositions !  And  if 
it  pleases  Him,  He  will  accept  them,  even  if 
you  are  devoid  of  every  supernatural  gift! 
Thus  all  depends  on  His  free  will.  For  a 
mind  like  Luther's,  in  love  with  the  absolute, 
would  not  what  was  absolutely  possible  be- 
come a  fact?  Since  infused  grace  was  un- 
necessary, why  retain  it? 

Let  us  stop  before  we  enter  upon  a  dis- 
cussion of  his  system.  We  are  only  look- 
ing for  the  dispositions  which  were  to  lead 
to  it.  Suffice  it  to  say,  in  conclusion,  that  a 
man  is  badly  equipped  to  react  against  a  doc- 
trine when  he  knows  that  doctrine  alone,  es- 
pecially if  its  fundamental  concepts  are  false. 
How  indeed  can  one  get  rid  of  the  principles  ? 
And  it  Avas  another  disadvantage,  especially 
for  a  mind  so  inclined  to  extreme  views,  to 
attach  one's  self  to  only  one  doctor,  even 
though  he  were  the  greatest  of  all. 

We  here  touch  upon  a  very  delicate  point. 
St.  Augustine  is  the  Doctor  of  grace.  His 
system  is  assuredly  the  system  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church.  But  it  is  undeniable  that  at  times 
his  expressions  are  too  strong,  that  he  even 

1  Occam,  on  I  Sent.  dist.  17,  qu.  1  M.  cited  by 
Denitle-Paquier,  III.,  198:  Et  ita  ista  opinio  max- 
ime  recedit  ab  errore  Pelagii,  que  ponit  Deum  sic 
non  posse  necessitari  et  non  magis  gratuitam  et 
liberani  Dei  acceptionem  esse  necessriam  cuicumque. 


8^        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

struck  too  hard,  and  that  in  his  very  laudable 
desire  to  crush  a  dangerous  heresy  he  gave  a 
rather  unnatural  explanation  to  some  texts  of 
the  Epistle  to  the  Romans.  Gaston  Boissier 
has  somewhere  raised  the  question,  whether 
the  African  writers  had  not  a  special  tem- 
perament of  their  own.  Tertullian,  St.  Cyp- 
rian, and  St.  Augustine  would  seem  to  have 
upheld  what  they  considered  the  truth  with 
a  certain  spirited  sort  of  logic  which  led  the 
two  first  into  excesses,  and  Tertullian  even 
into  heresy.  Once  more,  a  sense  of  ecclesias- 
tical tradition,  a  very  thorough  study  of 
Scripture,  all  the  gifts  of  nature  and  of  grace, 
made  of  Augustine  an  incomparable  Doctor; 
but  precisely  on  account  of  his  unique  genius, 
he  exerts  over  those  who  read  him  alone  a 
sort  of  fascination,  and  if  they  are  naturally 
inclined  to  exaggerate,  they  will  be  apt  to 
set  up  all  his  formulas  as  dogmas,  his  whole 
exegesis  as  truth  of  faith.  Very  frequently, 
with  marvelous  tact,  Augustine  himself 
softens,  by  a  shading  or  a  distinction,  what 
is  too  strong  in  an  expression.  Trouble  lost 
for  absolute  minds  who  profess,  like  Luther, 
to  despise  distinctions.  After  Luther,  Jansen- 
ius,  Baius,  and  so  many  Jansenists,  wrongly 
understood  Augustine's  thoughts,  because 
the}''  failed  to  interpret  certain  striking  ex- 
pressions by  his  doctrine  considered  as  a 
whole.  Father  Denifle  recognizes  very  dis- 
tinctly that  Luther  supported  his  system  by 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        83 

an  inexact  exegesis  of  St.  Augustine,  and  that 
he  clung  to  it  "as  if  St.  Augustine  were  the 
Church,  and  each  of  his  explanations  were 
infallible."  ^ 

After  all,  an  Augustinian  reaction  against 
the  naturalistic  tendencies  of  the  Occamists 
had  alread}?  achieved  results.  St.  Thomas  had 
adopted,  and  we  may  say  co-ordinated,  the 
Augustinian  doctrine,  while  he  took  from  its 
expressions  what  might  be  misleading,  by  the 
very  fact  of  employing  them  in  his  theologi- 
cal construction.  In  modern  times,  many 
have  complained  that  St.  Thomas  was  a  too 
faithful  disciple  of  the  Doctor  of  grace. 

But  Luther  regarded  the  Thomists,  as  well 
as  the  Scotists,  as  mere  sectaries  bent  on 
defending  the  master  through  passion,^  with 
excessive  veneration,  heeding  words  more  than 
the  spirit.  But  was  not  his  own  preference 
for  St.  Augustine  more  exclusive  from  the 
fact  that  he  was  a  Hermit  of  St.  Augustine.'' 
The  glory  of  the  saint,  who  was  claimed  as 
founder,  merged  with  that  of  his  order.  When 
Wimpfeling  asserted  (in  1509)  that  St. 
Augustine  had  not  worn  the  habit  of  the 
Hermits,   and   cast   doubt  upon  the   authen- 

1  Denifle-Paquier,  III.,  p.  106. 

2  F.  165:  Simili  temeritate  aguntur  Thomiste,  Sco- 
tiste  etalie  secte,  qui  scripta  et  verba  siiorum  auctorum 
ita  defendunt,  lit  spiritum  non  solum  contemnant 
querere,  sed  etiam  nimio  venerationis  zelo  extin- 
guant,  satis  arbitrati,  si  verba  tantum  teneant 
etiam   sine   spiritu. 


84        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

ticity    of   two    sermons,   Lutlicr,    feeling   the 
outraije     offered    his     order    as     a    personal 


persons 

affront,  assailed  Wimpfeling  with  bitterest 
invectives :  "I  would  that  Wimpfeling,  the 
prattler,  the  carping  impugner  of  the  glory 
of  the  Augustinians,  had  read  these  two  ser- 
mons (but  it  were  first  necessary  that  he 
should  have  called  back  his  reason,  which  has 
gone  far  away  as  a  result  of  his  stubbornness 
'and  jealousy),  and  that  he  had  put  a  pair  of 
spectacles  before  his  mole-eyes.^  .  .  .  Why, 
then,  dost  thou,  an  old  man,  a  raving  maggot, 
accuse  Hugh?  Why  dost  thou  undertake  to 
correct  the  Church  of  God  ?"  ^ 

Here  we  see  the  Church  of  God  engaged  in 
the  little  quarrel ! 

Luther  will  write  later  in  the  Commentary  :^ 

With  such  follv  do  members  of  religious  com- 
munities contend  about  their  patriarchs. 

We  may  then  believe  that  Augustine  was 
particularly  dear  to  Luther  as  the  "founder" 
of  his  order.  As  for  St.  Thomas'  doctrine, 
that  concerned  the  Thomists. 

Had  Luther  known  the  Thomistic  doctrine, 
he  would  probably  have  judged  it  too  ration- 
alistic, for  it  was  preoccupied  with  reconciling 
reason  with  faith,  while  he  w^as  setting  up 
faith  against  reason.  Although  the  circum- 
stances,   which    developed    this    passion    for 

1  Jundt,  1.  1.  p.  65.  3  F.g.  80. 

2  Denifle-Paquier,  II.,  425. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        85 

mysticism  tliat  uont  to  the  point  of  contempt 
for  scliohistic  tlieology,  arc  still  obscure,  one 
must  certainly  assign  a  considerable  place  to 
the  influence  of  Tauler.  Father  Deniflc,  who 
is  so  well  acquainted  with  German  mystics, 
has  not  been  prevented  by  any  fraternal  spirit 
from  showing  how  inconsistent  with  himself 
was  this  great  Dominican  mystic.^  Tauler 
pleased  Luther  very  much  as  a  German ;  he 
thought  him  the  author  of  the  German  The- 
ology which  he  (Luther)   was  to  publish.- 

In  the  golden  period  of  the  Middle  Ages 
men  were  conscious  of  receiving  light  by 
speculative  theology  and  by  mysticism ;  but 
mysticism  reflected  theology  "as  the  moon  re- 
flects the  sun."  This  comparison  did  not  per- 
haps do  full  justice  to  the  very  real  and 
precious  light  which  came  from  mysticism 
itself.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  partial  divorce 
of  the  fifteenth  century  was  a  great  misfor- 
tune. With  Luther,  it  is  mysticism  alone, 
and  a  false  mysticism,  that  of  quietism,  which 
sets  itself  up  against  theology.  We  shall  cite 
but  one  text  taken  from  the  Commentary : 

Then  are  w^e  capable  of  His  w^orks  and  coun- 
sels, when  our  counsels  cease  and  our  works 
take  rest  and  we  become  purely  passive  in  re- 
gard to  God,  both  in  the  matter  of  our  interior 
and  our  exterior  actions.^ 

1  Deniile-Paquier,  HI.,  128  ff. 

-'  In   loKi,  cf.  Denifle-Paquier,  III..  128  and  note  2. 

^-  V.  203. 


86        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

Almost  immediately  afterwards,  Luther 
cites  Tauler: 

Of  tills  passivity  in  regard  to  God  see  Tauler, 
who  above  all  others  has  lucidly  and  ably  dealt 
with  this  matter  in  the  German  language.^ 

IF.  205. 


CHAPTER    III 

THE    NEW   DOCTRINE   AND   THE   EPISTLE   TO 
THE  ROMANS 

1.  The  Teaching  That  the  Justified  Man 
Lives  in  Sin  the  Antithesis  of  St. 
Paul's  Doctrine  Concerning  Grace 

Luther  was  not  the  first  monk  to  vindi- 
cate the  rights  of  grace  against  the  encroach- 
ments of  nature,  to  attack  philosophy  in  the 
name  of  simplicity  of  faith,  to  express  sus- 
picions about  man's  judgment,  to  denounce 
the  peril  of  trust  in  self.  Had  he  limited 
himself  to  these  topics  he  doubtless  would, 
on  account  of  his  tendency  to  go  to  excess 
and  of  the  confusion  of  his  mind,  have  over- 
stepped the  limits  of  orthodoxy  and  sought 
to  lead  souls  in  the  ways  of  quietism.  Would 
the  Church  have  intervened?  Would  he  have 
yielded .f^  Idle  questions.  What  is  certain  is 
that  his  doctrine  would  have  remained  in  a 
haze  of  German  mysticism ;  he  would  have 
lacked  a  clearly  affirmed  theological  doctrine 
and  at  the  same  time  a  basis  for  defense. 
But  he  came  forth  from  the  cloister,  proclaim- 
ing a  doctrine  founded  upon  the  Scriptures 
and  destined  to  replace  the  traditional  sys- 
87 


88        Luther  on  ike  Eve  of  Revolt 

tcm,  which  liad  grown  up  under  tlie  Influoncc 
of  the  disciples  of  Aristotle.  Tims  he  be- 
came at  the  same  time  the  champion  of  grace 
and  the  herald  of  truth  and  of  God.  The 
particular  portion  of  Scripture  which  he  pre- 
sented as  his  warrant  for  denounchig  the 
errors  of  his  contemporaries,  was  the  Epistle 
to  the  Romans.  The  Commentary,  which  he 
gave  of  it  in  his  Wittenberg  lectures  of  1515- 
1516,  formulated  a  well-defined  theological 
doctrine  and  made  clear  a  plan  for  self- 
defense. 

In  this  work  the  vague  feeling  of  being  un- 
der the  dominion  of  an  invincible  concupis- 
cence, becomes  the  affirmation  that  Baptism 
does  not  efface  original  sin.  Grace  ceases  to 
be  a  reality  and  Luther  is  saved  from  despair 
by  satisfying  himself  that  St.  Paul  taught 
that  the  righteousness  of  Christ  is  imputed 
to  us.  As  a  mystic,  he  had  ,  desperately 
preached  humility,  which  suffices  for  every- 
thing and  is  the  best  guarantee  of  salvation. 
He  now  substitutes  for  this  too  negative  no- 
tion that  of  faith,  a  principle  of  life.  This 
is  certainly  in  St.  Paul,  though  Luther  did 
not  yet  know  what  meaning  he  should  attach 
to  the  Apostle's  term.  The  last  point  of  his 
development  will  be  certitude  of  justification 
and  even  of  salvation.  But  in  this  Commen- 
tary his  notion  of  faith  is  still  too  vague  to 
serve  as  a  basis  for  certitude.  He  remains 
undecided,  leaning  more  towards  that  incerti- 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        89 

tudc,  which  the  mystic  was  particularly  prone 
to  inculcate. 

How  did  Luther  see  all  this  in  St.  Paul.'' 
It  is  unfortunately  hard  to  say,  since  he  is 
during  a  good  part  of  his  course  feeling  his 
way,  and  arrives  only  gradually  at  clear  and 
definite  expressions.  This  shows  that  he  did 
not  start  out  with  a  settled  system,  which  he 
was  ready  to  force  upon  St.  Paul's  words.  His 
hesitation,  however,  is  not  the  same  on  all 
points.  Although  he  insists  more  and  more, 
even  in  the  course  of  his  Commentary,  upon 
the  incapacity  of  human  nature  and  its  evil 
tendencies,  it  is  on  this  point  that  we  find 
least  contradictions.  It  is  impossible  to  at- 
tain righteousness :  one  must  admit  that  he 
is  powerless,  confess  that  he  lives  in  sin, 
and  by  this  avowal  solicit  mercy.  How  con- 
nect this  dreary  doctrine  with  that  of  the 
Apostle  ^ 

It  is  the  very  antithesis  of  what  St.  Paul 
teaches. 

The  subject  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans 
is,  as  St.  Augustine  understood,  what  we  call 
grace.  Its  propositio  is  contained  in  Romans 
I.  16-17:  "For  I  am  not  ashamed  of  the 
Gospel ;  for  it  is  the  power  of  God  unto  the 
salvation  of  every  one  who  believes,  the  Jew 
first,  and  the  Gentile.  For  therein  is  re- 
vealed the  righteousness  of  God,  going  from 
faith  to  faith,  as  it  is  written :  But  the  right- 
eous by  faith  shall  live."     The  Gospel  is  a 


90        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

divine  power,  acting  for  the  salvation  of  men, 
and  of  all  men,  provided  they  believe,  that  is 
to  say,  embrace  the  doctrine.  By  that  act 
they  ask  and  receive  the  gift  which  is  offered 
them;  and  it  is  thus  that  the  righteousness 
of  God  is  revealed, — revealed  in  them,  since, 
as  a  consequence  of  their  faith,  it  is  a  prin- 
ciple of  life. 

There  are  two  parts  in  the  development  of 
this  theme:  (1)  Those  who  believe  are  jus- 
tified in  the  blood  of  Jesus  and  sins  are  con- 
sequently forgiven  them;  this  is  justification, 
(Rom.  3.21-30)  which,  in  itself,  assures  sal- 
vation (Rom.  5.1-11),  and  is  "a  power  of 
God  unto  salvation"  according  to  the  theme 
of  Rom.  1.16;  (2)  Those  who  are  justified 
live  according  to  the  Spirit,  who  is  a  cer- 
tain pledge  of  salvation  (Rom.  6  and  8), 
and  this  is  Christian  life,  which  is  also  "a 
power  of  Godk  unto  salvation." 

The  passages  just  cited  are,  so  to  speak, 
the  center  of  the  teaching:  they  are  par- 
allel and  end  with  the  perspective  of  salva- 
tion. According  to  the  first,  sin  is  remit- 
ted ;  and,  nevertheless,  according  to  the 
others,  men  still  fight  against  sin  or  the 
flesh,  which  has  retained  the  impress  of  sin. 
But  the  synthesis  is  found  in  the  idea  of  the 
power  of  God  which  is  exerted  in  both  cases. 
This  power,  principle  of  spiritual  life,  is  at 
the  same  time  a  principle  of  death  for  the 
flesh.     One  lives  in  Jesus  Christ  because  he 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        91 

lias  received  it,  and  it  is  what  has  done  away 
with  sin.  Now  this  power  of  God  is  pre- 
cisely, as  it  is  already  said  in  the  theme 
(Rom.  1.17),  the  righteousness  of  God,  a 
righteousness  which  is  consequently  commu- 
nicated and  which  constitutes  the  state  of 
righteousness.  Whatever  quibbles  there  may 
be,  then,  about  this  or  that  text,  on  the  mean- 
ing of  "to  justify"  and  of  "justification"  in 
a  particular  passage,  it  results  from  the  most 
intimate  structure  of  the  Epistle  that  the 
righteousness  of  God  given  to  men  is  the 
principle  which  makes  them  die  to  sin,  to  hve 
unto  God  in  Christ. 

Around  these  fundamental  points  the 
other  parts  of  the  Epistle  group  themselves 
naturally. 

If,  while  keeping  exceptions  in  mind,  St. 
Paul  condemns  Judaism  and  heathenism,  it  is 
to  throw  into  more  striking  opposition  former 
times  and  the  Gospel  era,  the  patient  toler- 
ance of  God  and  His  granted  righteousness. 
The  sin  of  Adam  had  spread  over  all  man- 
kind ;  even  the  situation  of  the  most  highly 
favored  was  extremely  sad.  Far  from  being  a 
remedy,  the  old  law,  by  multiplying  command- 
ments, only  increased  the  number  of  trans- 
gressions. The  will  found  in  it  no  resource ; 
it  rather  revolted  against  the  precept,  aban- 
doning itself  to  evil.  But  with  Christ  all  is 
changed.  Because  of  His  blood  God  par- 
dons all  who  believe  in  Him.     By  faith  and 


/^ 


92        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

by  Baptism/  man  is  transformed,  he  becomes 
one  with  Christ.  If  by  the  misdeed  of  Adam 
all  have  been  made  sinners,  by  the  grace  of 
Christ  they  are  now  rendered  righteous.  The 
change  wrought  in  the  soul  is  so  great  that  it 
is  compared  to  death  followed  b}^  life.  There 
is  then  in  Christians  a  real  principle  of  life, 
which  is  the  charity  that  God  has  for  us,  and 
that  is  poured  forth  into  our  hearts.  Paul 
does  not,  indeed,  use  the  terms  of  Aristotle; 
he  does  not  distinguish  the  soul  from  its  pow- 
ers, nor  charity,  which  is  a  virtue  infused  into 
the  will,  from  sanctifying  grace,  which  is 
grafted  in  the  soul.  But  he  affirms  that  the 
Christian  is  henceforth  dead  to  sin,  and,  con- 
sequently, freed  from  the  law  of  Moses.   And 

1  St.  Paul  speaks  at  times  as  if  faith,  understood 
in  the  broad  sense,  which  implies  cliarity,  was  the 
one  condition  for  the  granting  by  God  of  that  divine 
justice,  called  grace  in  modern  tlieological  language. 
This  is  chiefly  when  he  is  combating  the  pharisaic 
doctrine  of  justice  acquired  by  man's  own  efforts. 
He  speaks  in  other  places  as  if  Baptism  were  the 
sole  means  by  which  this  grace  is  acquired.  Luther, 
attending  only  to  the  former  set  of  utterances,  made 
of  Baptism  a  mere  symbol,  denying  that  it  had 
any  power  to  impart  grace.  The  Church  reconciles 
both  sets  of  assertions  by  maintaining  the  necessity 
both  of  faith  and  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism. 
The  justice  of  God  is  given  to  every  believer;  but 
every  believer  must  receive  Baptism,  an  exterior 
rite,  conferring  the  grace,  which  it  signifies,  and  ad- 
mitting into  the  membership  of  the  Church.  So 
essential  is  this  rite  that  no  matter  how  perfect 
the  inner  dispositions  of  a  person  may  be,  he  cannot 
be  justified  without  receiving  it,  at  least  by  desire, 
as  our  Catechism  teaches.     [Translator's  note.] 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        93 

by  law  Paul  does  not  mean  only  the  cere- 
monial part  of  the  old  legislation  biit  the 
whole  law,  even  in  its  moral  enactments,  inas- 
much as  it  constituted  a  distinct  dispensation. 
Bossuct  had  very  well  understood  this :  "It 
is  then  that  law  given  to  Moses,  that  holy 
law  of  the  decalogue,  that  the  Apostle  calls  a 
ministry  of  death,  and  consequently  the  letter 
which  kills."  1 

But  the  Apostle,  in  declaring  that  the  Mo- 
saic law  was  abrogated,  did  not  renounce  the 
eternal  prescriptions  of  ethics.  He  looked 
upon  them  as  imposed  by  a  new  law,  the  law 
of  the  new  alliance,  the  law  of  charity.  Its 
requirements  surpass,  indeed,  those  of  the 
earlier  regime,  but  the  Christian  is  enabled 
to  meet  them  by  obeying  the  Spirit  which 
animates  him.  Sin  had  not  given  up  the 
struggle.  It  seems,  even  as  we  read  St.  Paul, 
that  it  had  some  base  of  operation  in  the 
flesh,  which  fights  against  the  spirit ;  but  sin 
w^as  no  longer  the  master,  it  no  longer  domi- 
nated. Man  was,  all  in  all,  delivered  from 
its  power  and  enabled  to  enter  the  service  of 
righteousness  (Rom.  6.18). 

How  did  Luther,  using  St.  Paul,  arrive  at 
a  result  so  diametrically  opposed  to  this 
teaching? 

The  radical  vice  of  his  argumentation  is  a 
lack  of  historical  sense.     He  took  no  account 

1  First  Sermon  for  the  feast  of  Pentecost,  accord- 
ing to  2  Cor.  3.7. 


94        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

of  the  concrete  situation  with  which  the  Apos- 
tle dealt.  All  the  words  of  the  Epistle  were 
considered  to  be  addressed  to  himself,  an 
Augustinlan  monk  deeply  Impressed  with  the 
danger  and  the  power  of  the  flesh.  He  felt 
intimately  all  that  Paul  said  of  the  powerless- 
ness  of  works ;  he  was  only  too  well  con- 
vinced of  that  by  his  personal  experience. 
How  often  had  he  not  witnessed  that  tragic 
conflict  between  the  will  on  the  one  side,  and 
on  the  other  sin,  which  dwells  in  the  flesh?  It 
is,  then,  really  s'ln  that  dwells  in  us.  The 
identification  of  sin  and  concupiscence  Luther 
claimed  to  find  in  the  seventh  chapter  of 
Romans,  particularly  in  verses  14-17 :  "I 
am  carnal,  sold  under  sin.  For  what  I  do  I 
know  not ;  for  I  do  not  that  good  which  I 
will,  but  the  evil  which  I  hate  that  I  do.  If 
I  do  that  which  I  will  not,  I  recognize  that 
the  law  is  good.  So  now  it  is  no  more  I 
that  do  it,  but  sin  that  dwelleth  in  me." 

Though  St.  Paul  speaks  in  the  first  person 
singular,  he  is  really  not  dealing  with  his 
own  experience  nor  with  that  of  baptized 
Christians ;  he  speaks  of  man  before  his  re- 
generation. This  was  St.  Augustine's  first 
interpretation ;  during  the  Pelagian  contro- 
versy he  adopted,  as  more  probable,  the  view 
that  the  Apostle  has  in  mind  the  regenerated 
man  who  is  still  conscious  of  his  powerless- 
ness  to  keep  God's  law  without  the  help  of 
grace. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        95 

Luther  adopted  and  distorted  this  second 
interpretation  of  St.  Augustine,  maintaining 
that  St.  Paul  represents  himself,  and  spiritual 
men  in  general,  as  still  in  the  state  of  original 
sin  and  powerless. 

He  accumulates  twelve  arguments  to  prove 
his  thesis  and  they  all  presuppose  the  same 
principle.  They  would  be  conclusive  only  if 
one  had  to  choose  between  two  classes  of  men, 
men  completely  spiritual  and  men  so  com- 
pletely enslaved  by  sin  that  they  do  not  even 
struggle  against  it. 

Here  is  the  first  argument: 

The  whole  text  expressly  indicates  a  groan- 
ing under,  and  a  hatred  for,  the  flesh  and  a  love 
for  the  good  and  for  law.  Now  this  can  in  no 
wise  be  said  of  the  carnal  man,  who  rather  hates 
the  law  and  scoffs  at  it  and  follows  the  flesh 
unresistingly.^ 

With  much  boldness,  and  not  without  psy- 
chological clearness  of  vision,  Luther  asserts 
that  it  is  a  spiritual  man  who  cries  out :  "But 
I  am  carnal"  (Rom.  7.14)  ;  for  this  is  not 
the  language  of  one  who  gives  himself  up 
to  sin. 

A  first  objection  to  understanding  St. 
Paul's  words  as  spoken  of  a  Christian  under 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Ghost  was  that 
such  a  one  could  not  make  the  confession  of 
Romans  7.15:  "I  do  not  that  good  which  I 
IF.  169. 


90        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

will;  but  the  evil  which  I  hatcy  that  I  do." 
The  text  is  formal,  and  Luther  allows  that  the 
literal  meaning  is  opposed  to  his  exegesis. 
Thus  to  the  human  understanding  do  his 
words  sound.  But  this  fact  could  not  prove 
an  obstacle  to  one  who  could  claim  the  spirit ! 
The  text,  then,  means  nothing  more  than  that 
the  spiritual  man  does  not  act  with  as  much 
ease  as  he  would  like,  and  especially,  that  he 
does  not  practice  virtue  so  well  as  he  would 
wish.  Augustine's  distinction  between  facere 
and  perficere  comes  in  conveniently  to  solve 
the  difficulty/ 

If  it  be  objected  that  the  spiritual  man  is 
declared  to  be  at  the  same  time  wicked  and 
righteous,  Luther  simply  admits  the  anti- 
mony. He  finds  support  for  it  in  this  same 
text,  in  which  St.  Paul  speaks  of  a  sinner  and 
which  the  Commentator  understands  to  refer 
to  the  spiritual  man : 

Thus  there  is  a  "commimicatio  idiomatum" 
in  virtue  of  which  the  same  man  is  spiritual  and 
carnal^  righteous  and  sinful,  good  and  bad. 
Just  as  the  one  person  of  Christ  is  at  the  same 
time  alive  and  dead.^  .  .  . 

In  fact,  Luther  has  finally  his  proof  that 
concupiscence  is  indeed  a  sin,  which  remains 
as  sin  in  the  Christian.      "Now  then  it  is  no 

1  We  have  already  seen  that  it  is  opposed  to  the 
Greek  text. 
2F.  172. 


Lut/icr  oti  the  Eve  of  Revolt        97 

longer  I  \hiit  du  it,  but  sin  that  dwolleth  in 
ine"  (Uoiii.  7.17).  Nothing  could  be  clearer  ; 
theologians  would  not  have  failed  to  grasp 
the  point  if  they  had  not  been  so  carried 
away  by  Aristotle  as  to  miss  Paul's  teaching: 

Have  not  then  the  fallacious  metaphysics  and 
philosophy  of  Aristotle  deceived  our  theologians 
according  to  human  tradition.^  They  have  been 
misled  into  thinking  that,  because  sin  is  abol- 
ished by  Baptism  or  Penance,  it  were  absurd 
for  the  Apostle  to  say:  but  sin  that  dwelleth 
in  me  .  .  .  Consequently  sin  is  in  the  spiritual 
man,  left  there  to  exercise  grace,  to  humble 
pride,  to  repress  presumption;  and  if  one  does 
not  sedulously  try  to  fight  this  sin,  without 
doubt  he  has  already  within  him  something  that 
will  bring  about  his  damnation,  even  though  he 
be  guilty  of  no  other  sin.^ 

The  opposition  to  St.  Paul  is  flagrant: 
the  baptized  Christian  is  still,  according  to 
Luther,  exposed  to  damnation.  Now  the 
eighth  chapter  of  Romans  begins  with  the 
words :  "There  is  now  therefore  no  condem- 
nation to  them  that  are  in  Christ  Jesus."  In 
the  ScJiolia,  so  abundant  in  regard  to  Romans 
7.7  jf.,  there  is  not  a  word  concerning  this 
text.  In  the  marginal  gloss  there  is  nothing, 
while  in  the  interlinear  gloss  the  new  doctrine 
is  clothed  in  words  which  avoid  a  too  pro- 
nounced opposition : 

IF.  178. 


n 


98        Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

There  is  now  then  no  condemnation,  although 
not  no  sin,  as  has  been  said,  because  "by  the 
fiesh  they  serve  the  law  of  sin." 

We  have  thought  it  important  to  place  in 
its  setting  the  text  which  made  such  an  im- 
pression on  Luther.  Perhaps,  according  to 
his  experience,  he  was  only  inclined  to  con- 
jecture that  sin  remains  and  was  fixed  in  his 
opinion  by  the  text ;  it  may  be,  however,  that 
he  was  already  convinced  of  the  survival  of 
sin  and  that  to  this  text  he  owed  only  its 
identification  with  original  sin.  However  that 
may  be,  it  is  to  these  words  that  he  refers  us 
at  the  moment  he  defines  his  theory,  after 
having  explained  the  seven  first  verses  of 
the  fourth  chapter  of  Romans  : 

It  is  not  question  here  of  sins  in  deed,  word 
and  thought,  but  of  that  fuel  (fomes)  of  sin, 
of  which  chapter  7  below  speaks:  "Not  I,  but 
sin  that  dwelleth  in  me."  And  in  the  same 
place  he  calls  it  the  "passions  of  sins,"  i.  e., 
desires,  affections  and  inclinations  to  sins, 
which,  he  says,  produce  fruit  unto  death.  There 
actual  sin  (to  use  the  term  of  theologians)  is 
more  truly  a  sin,  i.  e.,  the  work  and  fruit  of 
sin,  but  sin  is  that  very  passion,  fuel  (fomes), 
and  concupiscence  or  proneness  to  evil  and  dif- 
ficulty in  doing  good,  as  below:  "I  knew  not 
that  concupiscence  was  sin." 

It  requires  coolness  or  levity  to  sum  up 
Romans  7 . 7  J^.  in  the  words : 

I  knew  not  that  concupiscence  was  sin. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt        99 

But  It  must  be  confessed  that  this  text, 
which  had  so  impressed  Luther,  was  embar- 
rassing for  those  wlio  interpreted  it  of  re- 
generated man.  According  to  the  traditional 
principle  of  Catholic  exegetes,  who  never  sac- 
rifice a  recognized  truth  to  what  one  might 
personally  take  to  be  the  meaning  of  a  text, 
Augustine  had  maintained  energetically  that 
sin  is  remitted  in  Baptism.  As  for  this  text, 
he  had  solved  the  difficulty  by  taking  the 
words  loosely,  conceding  that  Paul  had  called 
concupiscence  sin,  although  not  in  the  proper 
sense  of  the  term :  "The  Apostle  commands 
us  to  check  concupiscence,  and  he  does  not 
permit  it  to  reign,  and  he  calls  it  by  the  name 
of  sin,  because  it  has  its  origin  in  the  first 
sin  and  because  any  one  consenting  to  its 
promptings  sins."  ^  Elsewhere  Augustine 
had  endeavored  to  give  a  more  precise  ex- 
planation :  "If  it  be  asked,  how  does  this  con- 
cupiscence of  the  flesh  remain  in  the  regen- 
erate man,  in  whom  there  has  been  remission 
of  all  sins  ...  to  this  It  is  answered,  that 
the  concupiscence  of  the  flesh  is  remitted  in 
Baptism,  not  that  It  be  not,  but  that  it  be  not 
imputed  unto  sin."  ^  This  Is  the  pronounce- 
ment of  a  comprehensive  mind,  which  does  not 
lose  sight  of  essential  points,  and  which  re- 

'^  Opus  imperf.  contra  Julianum  (429-430),  II. 
C.   226,  cited    in   Denifle-Paquier,  III.,   30. 

-De  niipt.  et  concupisG.  I.  C.  25  n.  28,  Denifle- 
Paquier,  III.,  11  ft-. 


100      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

fuses  to  be  drawn  too  far  by  the  personal 
view  that  St.  Paul  speaks  of  concupiscence 
as  sin  and  as  in  some  way  remitted  in  Bap- 
tism. Luther,  on  the  contrary,  falls  in  the 
way  in  which  he  leans :  he  sees  nothing  but 
the  identification  of  sin  and  concupiscence, 
and  since  concupiscence  remains,  he  declares 
that  sin  remains  also.  By  a  bold  falsifica- 
tion, he  attributes  this  opinion  to  St.  Augus- 
tine: 

But  St,  Augustine  has  very  well  said  that 
"sin  (concupiscence)  is  remitted  in  Baptism, 
not  that  it  be  not,  but  that  it  be  not  imputed."  ^ 

1  F.  109.  We  see  the  great  importance  of  this 
fact.  Father  Denifle  (D.-P.  III..  11  ff.)  has  con- 
chisively  shown:  1.  that  Luther  has  set  forth,  under 
analogous  terms,  the  reverse  of  Augustine's 
thought:  2.  that  he  knew  perfectly  well  the  true 
text,  which  he  commented  upon  in  the  same  way  as 
everybody  else  in  his  glosses  on  Peter  Lombard 
(1510-1511);  3.  that  he  obstinately  persisted 
henceforth  i"  always  citing  falsely;  4.  that  Me- 
lanchthon  completed  the  falsification.  Father  Den- 
ifle, quoting  from  the  Vatican  MS.,  has  not  written 
"concupiscence,"  the  copyist  having  omitted  to  add 
this  marginal  word.  Ficker  (o.  1,  p.  41)  has  dared 
to  say  that  this  little  word  reduces  to  nothingness 
the  passionate  attack  of  Father  Denifle.  M.  Paquier 
has  very  well  answered  that  it  changes  nothing 
(III.,  p.  16).  I  think  that  Luther's  correction 
proves  that  he  had  reread  Augustine.  He  cannot 
then  be  excused  on  the  ground  of  only  having  fallen 
into  a  mistake  of  memory.  The  falsification  re- 
mains and  thus  appears  more  voluntary.  If  he 
leaves  the  two  words,  it  is  because  sin  =  concu- 
piscence. Would  he  then  have  cited  Augustine 
against  his  own  system? 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      101 

Docs  the  fact  tliat  slii  remains  after  Bap- 
tism mean  tliat  notliing  has  been  changed? 
Luther  does  not  dare  to  go  so  far  as  that, 
when  commenting  on  the  Pauline  texts ;  but 
he  has  found  a  most  ingenious  way  out  of 
the  difficulty,  and  at  the  same  time  he  lays 
the  foundation  of  his  whole  moral  system : 
sin  has  not  been  taken  away ;  and  the  change 
that  takes  place  in  the  soul  is  not  brought 
about,  as  scholastics  would  have  it,  by  a  mys- 
terious transformation,  but  by  a  more  ener- 
getic resolution  to  combat  concupiscence. 
Thus,  w'thout  appearing  to  notice  it,  while 
seeming  to  oppose  the  too  human  doctrines 
of  philosophers,  Luther  does  away  with  the 
supernatural  effect,  the  divine  reality  pro- 
duced in  the  soul  baptized  in  Christ  to  be 
born  again  with  Him.  All  this  is  given  as 
exegesis  of  the  beginning  of  this  important 
seventh  chapter  of  Romans,  where  Paul  ex- 
plains how  the  Christian  is  dead  to  the  law. 
Note  well,  says  Luther  with  insistence,  that 
it  is  not  sin  which  is  remitted,  but  that  it  is 
man  who  is  dead.  And,  better  to  bring  home 
his  meaning,  he  tries  every  subtlety.  This 
passage  is  decisive  in  conveying  an  idea  of 
his  exegesis : 

Corollary:  The  manner  of  speech  of  the 
Apostle  and  the  metaphysical  and  moral  manner 
are  contrary.  For  the  Apostle  seeks  to  convey 
that  man  is  rather  taken  away,  sin  remain- 
ing (left  over  as  it  were),  and  that  man  is  re- 


102      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

moved  from  sin  rather  than  that  siii  is  removed 
from  man.  But  man's  judgment  on  the  con- 
trary speaks  of  sin  being  taken  away,  the  man 
remaining,  and  of  the  removal  of  stains  from 
man.  But  the  judgment  of  the  Apostle  is  emi- 
nently right  and  perfectly  divine.  For  thus 
also  does  the  Scrij^ture  (Psalm  80)  say:  "He 
removed  his  back  from  the  burden."  It  does 
not  say:  "He  removed  the  burden  from  his 
back."  ^ 

Let  us  pass  by  this  childish  literalism. 
Luther  considered  himself  armed,  by  such 
means,  with  a  powerful  weapon  against  the 
justiciarii.     And  he  was  right. 

Father  Denifle  remarks  that  in  reality  the 
soul  does  not  die  in  justification,  and  that  it 
is  precisely  in  the  system  of  Luther  that  it 
is  not  really  changed.^  What  did  that  mat- 
ter to  Luther.'^  He  was  not  disconcerted  by 
contradictions ;  he  even  saw  in  them  a  divine 
seal  upon  his  doctrine.^  And,  as  to  the  point 
which  occupies  us,  he  surely  was  conscious 
of  having  found  a  new  principle,  that  which 
Protestants  still  oppose  to  Catholics,  the 
moral  reform  of  the  will,  substituted  to  what 
they  call  the  magical  effect  of  grace.  Luther 
did  not  foresee,  however,  what  an  intense 
Pelagianism  was  to  issue  from  this  doctrine; 
he  thought  he  was  fighting  the  human  judg- 
ment and  metaphysical  quibbles : 

1  F.  164.  3  Denifle-Paquier,  III.,  225,  305. 

2  Denifle-Paquier,  III.,  319  ff. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      103 

Whence  it  is  clear  that  the  Apostle  under- 
stands sin  to  be  si)iritiially  removed,  that  is,  the 
will  to  sin  to  be  mortified,  whereas  they  claim 
that  the  works  of  sin  and  evil  desires  are  meta- 
physically removed,  as  whiteness  from  a  wall, 
heat  from  water.^ 

What  theologian  pretended  that  concu- 
piscence was  removed  by  sanctifying  grace? 
But  when  Luther  is  in  presence  of  a  meta- 
physical term  he  gets  angry  instead  of  trying 
to  understand  it.  He  imagines  that  the  in- 
fusion of  charity  is  a  detriment  to  moral 
change,  ^vhich  he  is  of  course  right  in  demand- 
ing, but  which  is  easier  and  more  complete 
in  one  under  the  influence  of  grace;  and  he 
cries  out : 

That  cursed  word  "informed"  (formatum), 
which  forces  men  to  understand  that  the  soul  is, 
as  it  were,  the  same  before  and  after  charity, 
and  that  it  is,  as  it  were,  by  the  accession  of 
a  form  brought  into  action,  whereas  it  is  neces- 
sary that  it  should  be  totally  mortified  and 
made  other,  before  it  puts  on  charity  and 
works !  ^ 

The  last  words  are  deceptive ;  they  should 
be  understood  in  the  light  of  the  new  doc- 
trine, that  mortification  will  be  complete  only 
at  death.  It  was  hard  to  veil  the  opposition 
of  this  view  to  Paul's  doctrine.  Romans  6, 
which  incontestably  described  the  new  state, 
offered  more  than  one  hard  problem  to  the 
IF.  164.  2F.  104. 


104      Lnther  on  the  Ere  of  Revolt 

new  exegesis.  When  Paul  sa^^s  that  Chris- 
tians are  baptized  "into  the  death"  (in  mor- 
tem), united  in  Baptism  to  the  death  of 
Christ,  Luther  explains  it  to  mean  "for 
death"  (ad  mortem),  their  own  death: 

That  is,  they  begin  to  act  that  they  may  at- 
tain to  that  death  and  that  goal.^ 

In  reality,  riddance  of  sin  is  deferred  till 
the  moment  of  death.  How  then  understand 
that  one  is  dead  to  sin  and  lives  unto  God.'^ 
It  is  necessary  to  attenuate  the  Pauline  ex- 
pressions : 

(1)  To  be  dead  to  sin;  (2)  but  to  live  for 
God;  (3)  to  serve  by  the  mind  the  law  of  God 
and  by  the  flesh  the  law  of  sin  (Rom.  7.25), 
mean  nothing  but  that  we  must  not  consent  to 
concupiscence  and  to  sin,  although  sin  remain. 
It  is  the  same  (4)  about  sin  not  dominating, 
not  reigning,  but  (5)  justice  reigning,  etc. 

As  regards  these  last  two  cases,  Luther 
seems  to  have  a  more  solid  foundation  in  the 
text  of  the  Apostle.  If  sin  must  no  longer 
have  dominion,  reign  (Rom.  6.12-14),  if  we 
are  no  longer  to  serve  it  (Rom.  Q.Q),  it  must 
be  that  it  still  exists.  It  is  not  the  master, 
but  it  is  there. 

To  express  here  my  whole  thought  on  the 
matter,  I  consider  it  would  be  more  in  con- 
formity with  the  concept  of  St.  Paul  not  to 
1  r.  155. 


Lnihcr  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      105 


see  here  a  designation  of  original  sin.  I 
know  that  theologians  will  be  careful  not  to 
speak  of  original  sin  after  Baptism ;  they 
will  say  that  it  exists  only  as  concupiscence. 
But  if  Paul  employs  the  word  sin,  why  not 
understand  it  in  the  proper  sense?  Luther 
obstinately  refused  to  make  any  distinction. 
He  would  not  have  even  the  semblance  of  a 
reason,  if  it  were  not  said  that  sin  still  dwells 
in  man  by  some  sort  of  function.  And  there 
will  be  no  reason  for  tliis  statement  if  we  un- 
derstand Romans  7.7  ff.,  as  written  concern- 
ing unregenerate  man.  It  would  be  very  im- 
portant, for  an  altogether  exact  exegesis, 
not  to  define  too  closely  what  the  Apostle  left 
somewhat  vague. 

Sin  is,  according  to  him,  at  times  original 
sin,  at  others  it  is  actual  sin ;  but  when  it  is 
question,  as  here,  of  dominating,  reigning, 
commanding,  it  is  personified,  like  a  being 
V,  ith  a  separate  existence ;  it  is  almost  a  prin- 
ciple of  evil,  a  demon  which  would  seek  to  es- 
tablish his  empire,  by  using  what  is  carnal, 
but  not  sinful,  in  us.  Sin  is  ever  present  and 
threatening,  but  from  without. 

Luther,  on  the  other  hand,  thinks  of  it  as 
original  sin  which  remains  and  he  is  conscious 
of  departing  on  this  point  from  the  opinion  of 
theologians : 

Things  being  thus^  either  I  have  never  under- 
stood^ or  scholastic  theologians  have  not  spoken 


106      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

well  enough  about  sin  and  grace,  who  dream  of 
all  original  sin  being  taken  away  as  well  as 
actual  sin,  as  if  the}^  were  things  that  could  be 
removed  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  as  darkness 
by  light.  Whereas,  the  ancient  Holy  Fathers, 
Augustine,  Ambrose,  spoke  very  differently  in 
conformity  with  Scripture;  they  (the  theolo- 
gians) speak  like  Aristotle  in  his  Ethics,  who 
placed  sins  and  righteousness  in  works,  as  like- 
wise, their  conferring  and  taking  away.^ 

It  would  be  hard  to  push  confusion  farther. 
What  had  Aristotle  to  do  with  the  question, 
and  where  did  he  say  that  sins  disappear  in 
a  moment.'^  But  Luther  held  to  his  contrast: 
on  the  one  side  the  Scriptures  and  the  Fathers, 
on  the  other  Aristotle  and  the  theologians. 

It  is  to  Scripture  that  Luther  has  recourse 
to  prove  that  we  must  look  upon  the  existence 
of  original  sin  as  continuing  in  baptized 
Christians.  He  was,  indeed,  penetrated  per- 
sonally with  the  sentiment  of  sin  and  he  ap- 
peals to  experience ;  but  it  was  a  truth  of 
faith,  which  the  Scriptures  taught  and  which, 
we  would  have  to  accept  even  against  the  tes- 
timony of  conscience.  This  is  said  from  the 
beginning : 

Even  if  we  recognize  no  sin  in  us,  we  must 
nevertheless  believe  that  we  are  sinners.  .  .  . 
By  faith  alone  must  we  believe  that  we  are  sin- 
ners, because  it  is  not  manifest  to  us,  nay,  we 
even  more  often  seem  to  ourselves  not  guilty.^ 
1  F.  108.  2  F.  69. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      107 

He  gives  as  proof  some  scriptural  texts. 
The  point  is  so  important  that  he  comes  back 
to  it  in  connection  with  original  sin. 

Therefore  we  are  all  born,  all  die  in  iniquity, 
i.  e.,  in  unrighteousness.  .  .  . 

And  he  accumulates  passages  of  Holy  Writ 
to  show  that  all  are  in  sin.  It  is  useless  to 
indicate  each  of  his  twelve  arguments.  Not 
one  refers  to  original  sin.  And  that  every  one 
should  confess  himself  sinful,  no  one  denied. 

Luther,  at  any  rate,  was  fully  persuaded 
that  his  principal  thesis  rested  on  Scripture, 
and  on  the  Fathers,  represented  by  St.  Augus- 
tine, whose  principal  text  he  had  misquoted. 

S.    Imputed  Righteousness  Not  Found  in 
St.  Paul 

Sin  is  a  correlative  of  righteousness.  If 
man  is  a  sinner,  if  original  sin  remains  in  him, 
he  is  not  really  righteous.  Conciliation  of 
contradictories  cannot  go  so  far  as  that. 
Luther  acknowledges  that  this  point  gave  him 
much  preoccupation.  How  could  he  call  him- 
self a  sinner,  when  confession  had  taken  away 
his  ?,m.?  If  sin  remained,  how  was  he  justified? 
The  solution  w^ould  arouse  envy  in  the  most 
subtle  scholastic:  sin  was  "remitted"  without 
being  "taken  away,"  except  in  hope,  and,  to 
use  other  terms,  it  was  not  regarded  as  sin, 
it  was  not  imputed: 


108      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

Thus,  I  contended  within  myself,  not  know- 
ing that  there  is  indeed  a  real  remission,  though 
there  is  no  taking  away  of  sin,  except  in  hope, 
i.  e.,  it  is  to  be  taken  away,  and  grace  is  given, 
which  begins  to  remove  sin^  so  that  it  be  not 
now  imputed  for  sin. 

Sin  is  not  imputed!  An  important  for- 
mula, for  it  is  biblical:  "Blessed  is  the  man 
to  whom  the  Lord  hath  not  imputed  sin" 
(Psalms  32.2).  He  is  now  in  possession  of 
a  text  and  of  a  principle  that  distinguishes 
him  from  his  opponents,  the  justitiarii: 

Their  watchword  and  doctrine  is:  he  is  right- 
eous who  does  this  and  that;  but  that  of  the 
others  (it  is  question  of  himself)  is:  Blessed  is 
the   man  to   whom   the   Lord   does   not   impute 


The  consequence  was  of  a  nature  to  cause 
the  boldest  to  pause :  God  then  was  to  regard 
as  righteous  those  who  are  not.^^  Luther  did 
not  recoil  from  the  paradox : 

The  saints  are  always  intrinsically  sinners, 
therefore  they  are  always  extrinsically  justi- 
fied. Hypocrites,  on  the  other  hand,  are  always 
intrinsically  righteous,  therefore  they  are  al- 
ways extrinsically  sinners." 

To  see  in  this  the  view  of  a  man  of  genius, 
one  must  admit  that  genius  is  not  bound  by 

IF.  104.  2F.  104. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      109 

the  rules  of  common  sense.  Nothing  could  be 
more  painful  than  to  see  Luther  entangled  in 
these  notions  of  intrinsic  and  extrinsic.  In- 
trinsic should  signify  the  reality  which  is 
within  man  ;  Luther  takes  it  in  this  meaning, 
but  he  attaches  a  second  to  it.  It  is  used  in 
a  double  sense  in  the  text  just  quoted.  There 
it  signifies  (1)  In  reality,  (2)  In  our  own 
eyes: 

Intrinsically,  I  say,  i.  e.,  as  we  are  in  our- 
selves, in  our  own  eyes,  in  our  own  estimation. 

And  he,  the  enemy  of  scholasticism,  appeals 
for  the  substantiation  of  his  thesis  to  the 
"nature  of  relatives,"  to  the  "power  and  ne- 
cessity of  relation."  For  those  who  are  jus- 
tified, the  terms  are  applicable ;  the}^  are 
sinners  intrinsically,  justified  before  God  and 
in  His  reckoning.  But  why  not  say  that  all 
are  sinners  intrinsically?  Because  the  hypo- 
crites (Luther's  adversaries,  the  justitiarii) 
are  righteous  in  their  own  eyes,  consequently 
intrinsically  (!)  righteous  and  then 

by  the  power  and  necessity  of  relation  they  are 
extrinsically  unrighteous  (i.  e.,  in  the  reckoning 
of  God).i 

If  we  set  aside  this  logic,  we  have  the  state- 
ment that  sinners  are  justified  when  they  ac- 
knowledge their  sin,  that  is  to  say,  that  hu- 
iF.   104  and   105. 


110      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

mility  is  the  cause  of  justification.  Now  as 
Luther  does  not  speak  of  actual  grace,  he, 
the  defender  of  grace,  ends  in  a  Pelagian  doc- 
trine of  justification.  It  is  true  that  his  jus- 
tification lacks  reality. 

The  contradiction  with  St.  Paul  is  com- 
plete. The  Apostle  teaches  that  the  Gospel 
is  the  manifestation  of  the  justice  of  God, 
and  (as  Luther  claimed  to  be  the  first  to  have 
recognized)  not  of  the  divine  attribute  of  jus- 
tice, but  of  a  justice  given  to  men  to  justify 
them.  On  this  point  the  agreement  of  tradi- 
tion was  absolute.  The  exegesis  of  St. 
Augustine  did  not  furnish  even  the  appear- 
ance of  a  pretext  to  depart  from  it.  So 
Luther  long  remained  faithful  to  the  Catholic 
formulas.  No  one  would  have  reproached 
him  with  opposing  the  righteousness  of  Paul 
to  that  of  Aristotle.  The  righteousness  of 
God  is  gratuitous,  it  comes  from  on  high,  it 
is  not  acquired  by  works. 

Nothing,  evidently,  could  be  more  opposed 
to  the  doctrine  of  Aristotle,  who  admits  that 
righteousness  is  acquired  by  acts.  The  scho- 
lastic theologians  had  recognized  the  contra- 
diction. The  righteousness  we  have  from  God 
is  supernatural;  it  opens  for  us  the  gates  of 
heaven.  Without  this  righteousness  one  can- 
not always  practice  human  righteousness, 
especially  in  difficult  circumstances ;  but,  nev- 
ertheless, by  performing  acts  of  virtue  man 
acquires    a    certain    habit    of    righteousness 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      111 

which  helps  him  to  practice  it.  When  the  two 
kinds  of  righteousness  arc  united  (tlie  noniial 
case  of  a  baptized  Christian),  the  supernat- 
ural virtue  is  exercised  more  easily,  thanks  to 
acquired  habit,  or  the  habit  is  more  easily 
acquired.  There  is  in  this  nothing  contrary 
to  St.  Paul,  who  regards  Baptism  as  placing 
man  in  the  service  of  righteousness  in  view 
of  sanctification  (Rom.  6.18  j^.).  But 
Luther  affects  to  place  theologians  in  the 
camp  of  Aristotle,  as  if  they  had  no  notion  of 
a  righteousness  which  comes  from  God.  It 
is  his  first  great  discovery.  The  opposition 
between  the  righteousness  of  God  and  that  of 
Aristotle  is  set  forth  in  connection  with 
Romans  1 .17: 

It  is  different  from  the  righteousness  of  men, 
which  comes  from  works.  Thus  does  Aristotle 
(3,  Ethics)  clearly  determine,  teaching  that 
righteousness  follows  and  comes  from  works. 
But  the  righteousness  of  God  precedes  works 
and  works  come  from  it.^ 

Theologians  did  not  speak  otherwise. 

When  writing  the  words  just  quoted,  Luther 
still  appeared  to  say  that  God's  righteousness 
was  given  to  man,  since  he  performs  works 
which  proceed  from  it  (ex  ipsa).  It  was  the 
Catholic  doctrine,  which  was  then,  as  it  is 
now,  so  clear  that  it  is  not  opportune  to  in- 
sist ;  so  clear  that  Luther  long  preserved  its 
IF.  14. 


112      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

terms.  It  is,  consequently,  difficult  to  deter- 
mine at  just  what  point  of  his  Covimentnry 
he  passed  from  real  righteousness  to  right- 
eousness merely  imputed.  This  latter  variety 
is  clearly  in  view,  when  on  the  second  page  of 
his  Scholia,  he  invites  the  really  humble  man 

to  await  the  bare  mercy  of  God,  who  reckons 
him  as  just  and  wise. 

On  the  other  hand,  even  after  the  commen- 
tary on  chapter  4  of  Romans,  he  still  uses 
Catholic  terminology,  for  instance : 

For  though  we  be  justified  by  God  and  re- 
ceive grace,  we  do  not  receive  this  grace  by  our 
merit,  but  it  is  a  gift.^ 

It  is,  however,  at  the  end  of  his  commen- 
tary on  chapter  3  and  in  the  course  of  that 
on  chapter  4  that  he  establishes  his  doctrine 
of  imputed  justice.  If  the  term  appears  be- 
fore, it  is  because  his  conviction  had  been  ar- 
rived at  from  a  first  study.  When,  conse- 
quently, he  continues  to  speak  like  a  Catholic 
theologian,  we  must  often  understand  him  in 
a  particular  manner.  I  do  not  think  that  he  is 
rendering  witness  to  the  truth  by  a  contradic- 
tion when  he  says  at  the  end  of  his  commen- 
tary on  chapter  4 : 

The  death  of  Christ  is  at  the  same  time  the 
death   of   sin    and    His   resurrection   is   the   life 
1  F.   1-19. 


Luther  on  ihc  Eve  of  Revolt      113 

of  justice,  because  by  His  death  He  satisfies 
for  sin  and  by  His  resurrection  He  confers 
righteousness  upon  us.  And  so  His  death  does 
not  merely  signify,  but  it  effects,  the  remission 
of  sin  as  a  most  sufficient  satisfaction.  And  His 
resurrection  is  not  merely  a  sacrament  of  our 
righteousness,  but  it  also  effects  it  in  us,  if  we 
believe  it,  and  it  is  a  cause.  About  this  we 
shall  speak  more  at  length  below.  All  this  the 
scholastic  theologians  call  one  change:  the  ex- 
pulsion of  sin  and  the  infusion  of  grace.^ 

We  see  that  he  has  not  lost  sight  of  his 
opponents ;  and  we  cannot  suppose  that  he 
intended,  so  to  speak,  to  set  before  them  a 
flagrant  contradiction  in  his  own  new  doc- 
trine. Either  he  wished  simply  to  take  note 
of  the  thought  of  scholastics  opposed  to  his 
own,  or,  as  I  think  more  likely,  we  must  pre- 
suppose his  system,  which  does  not  deny  the 
remission  of  sins  nor  the  true  gift  of  right- 
eousness, but  puts  them  off  to  the  moment  of 
death.  In  the  passage  we  have  cited  Luther 
does  not  refer  us  to  a  quotation  of  Augus- 
tine, as  Ficker  thinks,-  but  to  an  elaborate 
theory,^  which  is  to  the  effect  that  we  die  to 
sin  only  once,  because  we  thus  die  only  on  the 
threshold  of  eternal  life.'*  Luther  prudently 
kept  this   explanation   in   reserve ;   otherwise 

IF.  129  f.  on  Rom.  4.25. 

2  F.   130,  note  2,  referrinTf  to  p.  152,  line  28. 

3  Rased  on  a  wrong  reading  which  he  prefers  to 
that  of  tlie  Vulgate;    see  above. 

4F.  157  f. 


114      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

one  would  have  to  suppose  that  he  was  not 
conscious  of  the  novelty  of  his  doctrine. 

If  we  cannot  know  at  precisely  what  mo- 
ment he  came  to  the  notion  of  imputed  jus- 
tice, we  can,  at  least,  appreciate  the  scrip- 
tural arguments  which  decided  him. 

These  arguments  are  not  devoid  of  clever- 
ness, and  his  way  of  interpreting  St.  Paul  is 
still  law  for  a  great  many  Protestant  exegetes. 

Instead  of  understanding  "to  justif}^"  in 
the  sense  of  "to  make  just,"  he  takes  it  as 
meaning  "to  declare  just."  This  was  only  a 
first  step,  because  one  would  think  that  God 
would  declare  just  only  him  who  is  really 
such.  But  already  he  had  determined  an  in- 
termediate state  in  which  God  does  not  im- 
pute sin.  Why,  in  like  manner,  should  He 
not  impute  justice.^  The  first  time  that  the 
term  jjistificari  presents  itself  (Rom.  2.18), 
he  understands  it:  "To  be  recognized  just"; 
and  this  is  right.  Likewise  the  second  time 
(Rom.  3.4),  where  it  is  question  of  God.  But 
already  he  gets  away  from  the  sense  to  a 
notable  degree  when  he  takes  the  justice  of 
God  of  Romans  3.5  for  the  justice. 

by  which  He  is  just  and  justifies  us. 

Here  it  is  incontestably  a  question  of  the 
retributive  justice  of  God.  And  this  misun- 
derstanding is  not  without  consequences,  be- 
cause the  act,  by  which  we  recognize  the 
justice  of  God,  becomes  the  act  by  which  He 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      115 


justifies  us  in  the  same  sense,  that  is,  by  ac- 
counting us  just: 

That  (justice  of  God)  our  injustice  (that  is 
acknowledged  and  confessed)  commends,  for  it 
Immbles  us  and  casts  us  down  before  God  and 
implores  His  justice,  which,  being  received,  we 
glorify  God  who  bestows  it.^ 

These  last  words  sound  well  enough.  One 
sees  how  much  Luther  is  embarrassed, — dif- 
ferently from  when  he  spoke  of  the  peinrja- 
nence  of  sin, — when  he  tries  to  get  away  from 
the  Catholic  doctrine  concerning  grace  re- 
ceived. But  he  does  not  delay  to  speak  more 
clearly  on  the  identity  of  the  two  justifica- 
tions, the  one  active,  the  other  passive: 

By  this  justifying  of  God  we  are  justified 
ourselves,  and  this  passive  justification  of  God, 
by  which  He  is  justified  by  us,  is  by  God's  ac- 
tion our  own  justification.  Because  the  faith, 
which  justifies  His  words.  He  reputes  justice, 
as  chapter  4  says.^ 

This  time  we  are  enlightened.  Luther 
would  have  spared  himself  this  disquisition  on 
active  and  passive  justification,  if  he  had  not 
had  already  in  view  imputed  justice,  such  as 
he  will  establish  it  in  his  commentary  on 
Romans  4. 

In  the  meanwhile,  he  draws  back  at  times 
under  the  pressure  of  the  texts.     When  he 

1  F.  55.  2  F.  65. 


116      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

puts  himself  the  objection  which  arises  from 
the  Epistle  of  St.  James,  from  Galatians, 
chapter  6,  from  Romans  2.13,  he  gives  the 
right  explanation  of  Paul's  texts.  In  con- 
demning works,  which  are  incapable  of  pro- 
curing justice,  the  Apostle  distinguished  be- 
tween the  dispensation  of  the  law  and  that  of 
grace.  The  faithful  and  infidels  may  be 
likened  to  priests  and  laymen.  The  latter  may 
use  the  formulas  of  the  former  and  nothing 
valid  is  accomplished.  On  the  contrary, 
priests  use  them  effectively ;  and  so  of  the  man 
who  has  the  faith, 

by  which  he  is  justified  and,  as  it  were,  or- 
dained, that  he  may  be  just  for  the  perform- 
ance of  works  of  justice. 1 

In  the  same  w^ay,  if  a  monkey  became  a 
man,  the  transformation  would  be  evident. 
The  comparison  is  surely  strong  enough! 
There  is,  then,  still  a  real  righteousness  and 
works  of  righteousness.  The  moment  had  not 
yet  come  when  the  Epistle  of  St.  James  would 
be  pronounced  an  Epistle  of  straw ;  and  cer- 
tain texts  of  St.  Paul  were  still  correctly 
understood. 

But  in  the  commentary  on  chapter  4  of 
Romans  the  new  doctrine  is  affirmed  already  in 
the  interlinear  gloss : 

2  F.  85. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      117 

It  was  reputed  to  him  by  God  unto  justice 
that  thereby  he  might  be  just  with  God.  And 
thus  it  is  not  of  him  who  works,  but  of  God  who 
accepts  his  faith  unto  justice. 

And  again : 

Who  justifies  by  grace.  The  wicked,  i.  e.,  he, 
who  of  himself  is  but  wicked,  is  reputed  before 
God, — ^that  is  to  say,  by  God  his  faith  is  gratui- 
tously reputed,  unto  justice,  that  he  may  be  just 
before  God.^ 

In  this  fourth  chapter,  St.  Paul  speaks  of 
Abraham,  the  father  of  believers,  the  most 
obvious  instance  of  one  who,  before  the  ad- 
vent of  Christ,  had  attained  to  the  righteous- 
ness which  Christ  was  to  merit.  He  does  not 
speak  directly  of  the  manner  in  which  Abra- 
ham obtained  righteousness,  nor  of  the  change 
which  must  have  taken  place  in  his  soul  at 
tliat  moment  of  his  justification.  The  essen- 
tial point  is  that  Abraham,  whose  righteous- 
ness all  admitted,  was  recognized  as  righteous 
by  the  Scriptures  on  account  of  his  faith.  He 
did  not,  consequently,  arrive  at  the  right- 
eousness of  works  (Rom.  4  . 1-3).  Then  Paul, 
comparing  the  formula  used  by  Genesis  in 
reference  to  Abraham  and  that  used  by  David 
in  the  Psalms  in  reference  to  the  pardoned 
sinner,  shows  that  they  exclude  works  and 
suppose  that  justice  comes  from  God. 

iF.g.  37. 


118      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

In  Romans  4 . 3  St.  Paul  quotes  Genesis 
15.6:  "Abraham  believed  God  and  it  was 
reckoned  unto  him  as  righteousness."  In 
Genesis  the  exact  words  are :  "And  he  believed 
Jahweh,  and  He  reckoned  it  unto  him  as 
righteousness."  It  is  almost  the  same  ex- 
pression of  satisfaction  that  Jahweh  has  for 
those  who  observe  the  law  (Deut.  6.25, 
24.13)  ;  it  is  applied  to  Phineas  for  an  act 
of  zeal  (Psalms  105.31).  It  is  in  no  wise 
question  of  the  first  justification  of  Abraham, 
but  of  the  merit  of  his  act  of  faith,  merit 
such  that  it  is  equivalent  to  a  perfect  work 
and  is  recognized  as  such  by  Scripture. 
Luther  and  Lutherans,  in  basing  upon  this 
text  their  system  of  imputed  justice,  are  go- 
ing manifestly  against  its  meaning  as  it  stood 
in  Genesis. 

Nor  is  there  anything  in  the  doctrine  of 
St.  Paul,  taken  as  a  whole,  which  would  au- 
thorize one  to  hold  that  he  thought  Abra- 
ham's faith  was  regarded  as  sufficient  without 
righteousness,  and  that  it  obtained  that  God 
should  declare  him  righteous  though  he  was 
a  sinner.  We  have  sufficiently  pointed  out 
that  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  regards  man's 
death  to  sin  as  very  real  and  announces  a 
power  of  God  which  really  transforms  the 
members  of  Christ's  mystical  body,  even  while 
they  are  still  on  earth.  St.  Paul  has  no 
thought  of  "Imputed"  righteousness.  And 
of  course,  it  Is  a  canon  of  modern  criticism 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      119 

that  a  phrase,  particularly  a  quoted  phrase, 
be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the  writer's 
doctrine  taken  as  a  whole. 

It  is  in  connection  with  this  text  of  St. 
Paul  that  we  find  the  disquisition  already 
spoken  of  concerning  extrinsic  justice. 
Again,  nothing  could  be  more  contrary  to 
his  teaching.  It  is  conceded  that  the  mean- 
ing of  the  words  "to  justify,"  "to  be  justi- 
fied," is  not  always  the  same  in  the  texts,  but 
it  is  not  doubtful  that  he  regards  Baptism  as 
the  beginning  of  a  life  of  real  holiness.  Holi- 
ness is  nothing  but  justice  (righteousness)  ; 
the}''  come  into  existence  and  they  disappear 
together. 

But  Luther's  stroke  of  genius  must  be 
placed  at  this  point.  Into  this  void  of  extrin- 
sic justice  he  has  thrown  Christ.  He  is  out- 
side of  us ;  but  He  is  our  good ;  much  more 
He  dwells  in  us,  and  lo !  our  justice  is  re- 
placed : 

Therefore  I  have  rightly  said  that  all  our 
good  is  extrinsic,  for  it  is  Christ.  As  the  Apos- 
tle says:  Who  of  God  is  made  unto  us  wisdom, 
and  justice,  and  sanctification,  and  redemption," 
all  of  which  are  in  us  only  by  faith  and  hope  in 
Him.i 

Luther  may  really  and  in  good  faith  have 
thought  at  this  period  that  he  was  replacing 
a  predicament  of  Aristotle  by  the  living  and 

IF.  114. 


120      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

active  presence  of  Christ.^     What  emotion  in 
the  following  exprc jsion : 

Therefore  let  us  say  to  God:  O  how  glad  we 
are  to  be  empty,  that  Thou  mayest  be  full  in 
us !  I  am  glad  to  be  weak,  that  Thy  power 
may  dwell  in  me ;  a  sinner,  that  Thou  mayest 
be  justified  in  me;  foolish,  that  Thou  mayest 
be  my  wisdom;  unrighteous,  that  Thou  mayest 
be  my  righteousness !  " 

Many  a  religious  soul  in  the  bosom  of 
Protestantism  has  thus  poured  itself  out  be- 
fore God.  And  the  words  are  but  an  echo 
of  ancient  Christian  mysticism.  One  must  be 
emptied  of  self  to  draw  God  into  his  heart ; 
humility  is  in  its  way  the  cause  of  grace. 

In  adding  the  exaggeration,  which  makes 
Christ  dwell  in  a  sinful  soul,  Luther  intro- 
duces an  innovation,  which  is  far  from  hon- 
oring Christ  as  he  claims.  Leaving  aside 
reasons  or  fitness,  the  Spirit  of  Christ  is 
truly  active  in  the  faithful  soul,  His  grace  is 
a  gift  which  constitutes  one  righteous :  "As 
by  the  disobedience  of  one  man,  many  were 
made  sinners ;  so  also  by  the  obedience  of 
one,  many  shall  be  made  just"  (Rom.  5.19). 
Luther  transcribes  this  text  without  paying 
it  the  courtesy  of  a  word  of  comment.     His 

1  Denifle  blames  him  rather  severely  for  makin<? 
of  Christ  a  q unlit y,  a  monstrous  thinsf  in  scholastic 
tlieoloo^v.     But  Luther  had  no  regard  for  this. 

2  F.  59. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      121 

position  is  taken.     He  is  in  possession  of  a 
doctrine:  sin  not  imputed,  imputed  justice. 

3.    Misinterpretation  of  St.  Paul's 
Teaching  About  Faith 

But  why  are  some  reputed  just?  To  an- 
swer the  question  in  the  hght  of  the  views 
which  Luther  has  up  to  this  time  set  forth,  we 
must  recur  to  the  mystical  teaching  that  God 
reputes  just  those  who  acknowledge  their  sin- 
fulness. This  solution  is  often  stated,  and 
we  have  just  seen  a  clear  expression  of  it. 
Likewise  God  saves  those  who  yield  them- 
selves up  to  Him  M'ith  purest  love. 

But  Avas  there  not  a  danger  that  this  love 
should  resemble  charity,  of  which  Luther  still 
speaks  with  praise  in  his  Commentary  but 
which  might  easily  become  suspect,  as  emi- 
nently a  work?  ^ 

As  regards  humility,  if  it  dug  very  deep 
the  abyss  into  which  false  security  sinks,  did 
it  not  threaten  to  weaken  the  soul  by  dis- 
couragement? Now  Luther  claimed  to  have 
found  a  middle  way  between  false  security 
and  despair.  He  had  to  indicate  in  man,  out- 
side of  humility  and  of  charity,  a  disposition 
which  inclined  God  to  justification.  He  finds 
it  in  faith.     The  principal  service  which  the 

1  F.  138:  Hence  only  the  "charity  of  God,"  which  is 
a  most  pure  affection  for  God,  which  alone  makes  up- 
right of  heart,  takes  away  iniquity,  extinguishes  the 
enjoyment  of  our  own  righteousness. 


122      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

Epistle  to  the  Romans  has  rendered  Protest- 
antism (very  much  against  its  will)  was  to 
give  faith  as  the  human  disposition  to  which 
God  gratuitously  accords  justification.  This 
faith  may  be  defined  in  various  ways.  Catho- 
lic exegesis,  and  also  independent  exegesis, 
sees  in  it  a  sincere  adhesion  to  Christianity. 
It  was,  in  its  way,  a  historical  notion ;  an  in- 
terior act  which  must  exist  at  all  times,  but 
which  in  St.  Paul  is  applied  to  that  manifes- 
tation of  the  divine  which  had  been  the  pas- 
sion and  resurrection  of  Jesus.  It  comprised 
an  intellectual  act,  the  adhesion  of  the  mind 
to  the  truth  proposed,  and  an  act  of  the  will, 
adhesion  to  the  new  life  in  Jesus. 

It  is  true  that  theologians,  with  a  view  to 
more  precision,  had  distinguished  these  two 
aspects,  following  the  example  of  Paul  him- 
self in  the  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  where 
he  distinguishes  so  clearly  faith  and  charity 
(1  Cor.  13).  But  to  understand  faith  as  St. 
Paul  did,  it  had  to  be  taken  with  charity ;  and 
Luther  would  not  do  so.  To  understand  it 
with  theological  precision  was  to  make  it  a 
disposition  which  could  not  distinguish  Chris- 
tians who  are  justified  from  those  who  are  not. 

There  is  always  a  possibility  of  employing 
an  ill-defined  and  vague  notion  in  the  most 
unexpected  way.  We  have  seen  that  Luther 
confounded  faith  and  obedience,  extending  the 
domain  of  faith  even  to  the  counsels  of  a  su- 
perior.    And  if  one  was  to  hold  as  a  matter 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      123 

of  faith  that  lie  is  a  sinner,  why  might  he 
not  hold  in  like  manner  that  he  is  righteous? 
This  step,  which  is  so  important  in  the  his- 
tory of  Protestantism,  is  taken  in  the  Com- 
mentary. We  find  in  it  a  first  sketch  of 
faith — confidence. 

It  is  St.  Bernard  mIio  must  serve  as  inter- 
mediary hetwcen  Luther  and  his  text.  After 
the  interlinear  gloss  (Rom.  8.16): 

The  Holy  Spirit  himself  given  us  giveth  tes- 
timony   strengthening   confidence   in    God.  .  .  . 

Luther  notes  in  the  margin : 

For  he  who  confides  with  strong  faith  and 
hope  that  he  is  a  son  of  God^  is  indeed  a  son  of 
God^  since  it  cannot  be  done  without  the  Spirit. 
Hence  the  blessed  Bernard  in  ser.  1  concerning 
the  annunciation  of  the  Lord.-*^ 

The  text  of  St.  Bernard  is  reproduced  at 
length  in  the  Scholia,  to  show  how  the  tes- 
timony of  the  spirit  is  indeed  confidence  of 
heart.  Nevertheless,  St.  Bernard  speaks  of  a 
triple  testimony  of  the  faith:  "Thou  must  be- 
lieve that  thou  canst  obtain  remission  of  sins 
onl}^  by  the  indulgence  of  God ;  that  thou 
canst  have  as  thy  own  absolutely  no  good 
work,  if  God  does  not  give  it ;  that  thou  canst 
merit  eternal  Hfe  by  no  work,  if  he  does  not 

iF.g.  73. 


124      Luther  07i  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

give  this  eternal  life  freely."  ^  These  expres- 
sions are  certainly  a  strong  affirmation  of 
the  need  of  grace.  But  while  formulated  for 
one  person  only,  they  assign  to  faith  a  gen- 
eral object.  And  for  this  reason  Luther 
judges  them  insufficient. 

That  is  only  a  certain  beginning,  and  as  a 
foundation  of  faith, 

of  that  faith  which  shall  be  his,  w'hich  is  com- 
plete only  when  it  is  at  the  same  time  per- 
sonal confidence  wdiich  partakes  of  the  nature 
of  faith : 

It  is  necessary  that  the  Spirit  make  thee  be- 
lieve this,  that  by  Him  sins  are  forgiven 
thee.  .  .  . 

And  this  is  welded  on  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Apostle : 

Thus  does  the  Apostle  deem  that  man  is 
justified  by  faith  (by  the  positive  belief  con- 
cerning thyself  also,  not  merely  concerning  the 
elect,  that  Christ  has  died  for  thy  sins  and 
atoned  for  them). 

The  second  point  of  St.  Bernard  is  devel- 
oped in  the  same  way : 

1  Necesse  est  enim  primo  omnium  credere,  quod  re- 
missionem  peccatorum  habere  non  possis  nisi  per  in- 
dulgentiam  Dei,  Deinde.  quod  nihil  prorsus  habere 
queas  boni  operis,  nisi  et  hoc  dederit  ipse.  Pos- 
tremo,  quod  alternam  vitam  nullis  potes  operibus 
promereri,  nisi  gratis  detur  et  ilia. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      125 

It  suffices  not^  until  the  spirit  of  trutli  gives 
testimony,  that  thou  liast  these  (merits)  by 
him. 

And,  finally,  it  is  not  enough  to  believe  that 
God  gives  eternal  life  gratuitously : 

But  it  is  necessary  that  thou  have  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Spirit,  that  thou  art  to  come  to  it. 

One  must  believe  that  be  is  predestined. 

Where  is  the  proof  that  authorizes  Luther 
to  transfer  Bernard's  words  from  the  scale 
of  objective  faith  to  that  of  personal  assur- 
ance, preserving  the  firmness  of  faith,  firm- 
ness due  to  the  word  of  God.'^     In  St.  Paul. 

These  three  points  are  clearly  manifest  in 
the  Apostle.  For  he  says:  "Who  shall  accuse 
against  the  elect  of  God.^*",  which  means  that 
we  are  certain  that  no  sins  will  accuse  us.  So 
of  merits :  "We  know  that  to  them  that  love  God 
all  things  work  together  unto  good."  So  of 
eternal  glory:  "I  am  sure  that  neither  things 
present  nor  things  to  come,  etc.,  shall  be  able 
to  separate  us  from  the  love  of  God,  which  is 
in  Christ."  ^ 

All  this,  it  is  true,  is  still  intimately  min- 
gled with  the  idea  that  it  is  humility  which 
renders  us  pleasing  to  God ;  this  humility  is 
then,  taking  it  all  in  all,  the  ultimate  foun- 
dation of  faith — confidence. 
1 F.  197  f. 


126      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

But  a  new  notion  was  set  forth,  which  was 
constantly  to  expand  its  dominion.  Luther 
claimed  to  lean  upon  St.  Paul.  St.  Paul 
had  had  in  view  the  community  of  Christians, 
whose  salvation  God  had  prepared  and 
whose  organ  he  was.  On  the  part  of  God 
salvation  was  assured,  but  the  Apostle  did 
not  ignore  the  fact  that  one  might  lose  the 
spirit  of  Christ  (Rom.  8.9).  Luther  apphes 
to  himself  words  spoken  of  the  faithful,  he 
lays  claim  to  the  assurance  given  them,  and 
adds  to  the  legitimate  confidence  of  the  Chris- 
tian the  firmness  of  faith.  It  was,  again, 
through  lack  of  historical  sense. 

To  this  confidence  he  has  given  a  strange 
expression,  perhaps  characteristic  of  his  race : 
men  must  hurl  themselves  upon  the  truth  of 
God,  Who  has  promised  salvation.^ 

Luther  could  not,  however,  forget  that  his 
main  purpose  was  to  attack  the  false  security 
of  the  jurists.  It  is  for  this  that  he  maintained 
sin.  He  stopped,  then,  before  having  rounded 
off  his  system.  We  must  fear,  he  tells  us, 
but  only  to  find  assurance  in  this  fear  itself. 
It  is  at  the  very  end  of  the  Commentary  that 
he  utters  a  last  denunciation  against  those 
who  are  in  security  and  confidence, 

which  all  aspire  to  with  wonderful  fury.     For 
thus  by  fear  grace  is  found;  and  by  grace  man 

1  Ergo  in  veritatem  promittentis  Dei  audacter 
ruat  (se  transferal  de  prescientiua  terrentis  Dei)  et 
salvus  et  electus  erit.     F.  214. 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      127 

is   made  willing  to  perform  good  works,  while 
without  he  is  unwilling/ 

Such  is,  let  us  repeat,  the  joyful  message 
which  Luther  had  in  store  for  the  world.  It 
was  only  when  his  doctrine  was  attacked  that 
he  boldly  hurled  himself  upon  confidence. 
Certitude  of  one's  own  justification  would  be- 
come the  best  proof  of  true  Lutheranism. 
Then  the  word  faith,  which  was  that  of  Paul, 
regained  all  its  advantages ;  faith,  and  faith 
only,  became  the  fundamental  disposition  of 
man  in  view  of  salvation. 


The  Commentary  offers  other  interesting 
features.  In  its  moral  part,  especially  from 
chapter  12  on,  the  words  of  the  Apostle  are 
scarcely  more  than  a  pretext  for  declamation 
against  abuses.  One  feels  that  Luther  was 
ready  to  attack  them  and  to  reform  them  in 
his  own  way.  He  was  in  conscious  possession 
of  a  new  religious  doctrine  which  he  claimed 
was  based  on  Scripture,  in  parti<fular  upon 
the  authority  of  St.  Paul.  We  have  endeav- 
ored to  shoAV  how  he  had  come  to  thi^  convic- 
tion, and  that  it  was  not  without  having  mis- 
interpreted the  thought  of  the  Apostle. 

IF.  324. 


EPILOGUE 

Consequences  of  the  New  System 

Luther  rightly  denounced  heresy  as  the 
blindest  and  most  audacious  manifestation 
of  pride.  Did  he  not  understand,  then,  that 
the  system  of  doctrine  which  was  already  co- 
ordinated in  his  mind  was  incompatible  with 
the  Church's  organization  and  disturbed  the 
harmony  of  Christian  dogma  ? 

In  1515,  Bohemia  was  still  agitated  by  the 
convulsions  of  the  Hussites,  the  most  radical 
of  whom  were  called  Picards.  Referring  to 
them,  he  asks :  "Are  we  to  support  the  heresy 
of  the  Picards?  .  .  .  Must  we  decide  to  sup- 
press everything  —  the  churches  and  their 
decorations,  all  fast-days,  all  feast-days,  dis- 
tinctions of  priests,  bishops,  and  religious, 
their  rank,  their  costumes,  their  ceremonies 
observed  for  so  many  centuries,  do  away  with 
all  monasteries,  foundations,  benefices,  pre- 
bends? This  is  what  they  do  and  what  ac- 
cording to  them  the  liberty  of  the  new  law 
calls  for."  1 

Luther's  reply  is  "God  forbid!"     Such  a 

revolution  was  far  from  his  mind.     He  asks 

for    changes ;    he    would    wish    that    prelates 

IF.  11,  p.  315. 

128 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      129 

miglit  take  the  initiative  in  diminishing  the 
nuinher  of  fasts  and  festivals,  shorten  the 
ceremonies,  give  to  tlie  poor  rather  than  lay 
np  treasures'for  the  construction  of  churches ; 
instead  of  maintaining,  even  by  war,  temporal 
interests,  churchmen  should  devote  themselves 
to  improving  morals ;  they  should  attach 
more  importance  to  inner  religion  than  to  the 
pomp  of  exterior  worship.  The  exemptions 
of  clerics  are  not  bad  in  themselves ;  but  when 
asked  whereby  they  deserve  them  these  clerics 
can  only  refer  to  the  prayers  they  mutter, 
and  they  get  exemptions  even  from  them. 
"We  priests,"  he  says,  "claim  freedom  from 
the  service  of  men  because  we  are  bound  to 
the  service  of  God.  We  serve  neither  God  nor 
man.  Let  us  beware ;  laymen  are  beginning 
to  open  their  eyes."  ^  But  the  reform  of 
abuses  is  all  that  is  necessary. 

Luther  does  not  as  yet,  in  the  project  of 
reform  which  he  opposes  to  that  of  the 
Picards,  seem  to  suppose  that  the  priesthood 
is  endangered  by  his  plans  to  secure  Chris- 
tian liberty.  The  priest  is  for  us,  as  he  was 
for  the  ancients,  a  man  who  offers  sacrifice. 
So  long  as  he  had  not  made  up  his  mind  to 
suppress  the  sacrifice  of  the  ^lass,  Luther 
allowed  what  was  essential  in  the  priesthood 
to  subsist.  But  the  priest  is  also  the  dis- 
penser of  the  sacraments,  especially,  after  the 
Eucharist,  of  the  sacrament  of  Penance.  If 
IF.   11,  299   f. 


130      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

Penance  does  not  confer  grace,  what  becomes 
of  the  power  to  bind  and  to  loose?  Since  sins 
are  not  loosed  in  Heaven,  the  jurisdiction 
conferred  on  Peter  and  the  Apostles  was  with- 
out an  object,  and  the  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion was  seriously  affected. 

Dogma  was  not  less  affected.  The  history 
of  the  Reformation  affords,  perhaps,  the  most 
striking  example  of  the  assistance  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  the  Church,  on  the  one  hand, 
and,  on  the  other,  the  shortsightedness  of  the 
human  spirit. 

Luther  was  shocked  by  the  rationalism  of 
theology.  Did  it  not  seek  to  bnng  divine 
realities  into  Aristotle's  categories,  place 
grace  and  charity  among  the  predicaments, 
speak  of  them  as  if  they  appeared  and  disap- 
peared in  the  soul  as  whiteness  on  a  wall  or 
heat  in  water?  He  thought  he  was  abolish- 
ing an  intermediary  between  the  soul  and 
Christ ;  or  rather  he  fancied  he  was  doing 
away  by  a  stroke  of  his  pen  with  an  artificial 
philosophical  entity  to  unite  liimself  more 
closely  with  the  Savior.  The  soul,  always 
sick,  is  henceforth  in  the  hands  of  its  Healer. 

This  seductive  simplification  was,  there  can 
be  no  doubt,  the  cause  of  the  success  of  Luth- 
eranism,  at  least  in  the  case  of  those  whom 
it  drew  by  its  religious  character.  But  while 
attempting  to  remove  an  obstacle  to  the  soul's 
union  with  God,  Luther  was,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,    destroying    the    possibility    of    such    a 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      131 

union.  Scholastics  had  boldly  attempted  to 
understand  divine  realities  as  well  as  they 
could,  and,  if  it  appeared  rash  to  classify 
thoni,  was  it  not  the  noblest  task  of  the  hu- 
man mind  to  construct  a  harmonious  system, 
in  which  the  supernatural  was  conceived  as 
adapted  to  our  weakness  in  order  to  raise  us 
up  higher?  For  the  rest,  whether  grace  was 
to  be  regarded  as  a  second  nature,  communi- 
cated to  the  soul  itself,  and  charity  as  a  qual- 
ity of  the  will,  was  not  altogether  a  closed 
question ;  what  was  essential  was  to  suppress 
neither  grace  nor  the  love  of  God,  which  is 
according  to  Jesus  Christ  everything  in  re- 
ligion. Genuine  theology  had  not  a  whit  less 
horror  for  Pelagianism  than  had  Luther.  It 
taught  that  man  cannot  merit  eternal  life,  or 
even  grace,  by  the  efforts  of  nature  alone; 
that  grace  comes  only  from  God ;  that  the  dis- 
positions of  the  soul  to  receive  it  must  them- 
selves be  aroused  by  help  from  above.  But  it 
believed  with  St.  Paul  in  the  liberality  of 
God,  rich  in  His  gifts  to  those  who  have  re- 
course to  Him.  Jesus  Christ  could  not  abide 
in  a  soul  soiled  with  sin ;  He  came  to  her  with 
complete  pardon,  and  made  her  able  to  re- 
spond to  His  love  by  clothing  her  with  char- 
ity,— the  love  of  friendship,  the  theologians 
called  it, — which  established  between  Jesus 
and  the  soul  an  intercourse  which  was  alto- 
gether favorable  to  humility,  so  gratuitous 
was  such  an  elevation.     In  making  of  confi- 


132      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

dence  the  sum  of  all  that  man  experiences  in 
regard  to  God,  Luther  did  indeed  keep  re- 
ligious sentiment  at  a  high  level,  but  he  was 
obliged  to  despoil  man  of  charity — of  which 
he  still  speaks  enthusiastically  in  his  first 
writings — and,  consequently,  to  disrupt  the 
divine  union.  Modern  Protestants  are  fond 
of  applying  the  term  "magical"  to  Catho- 
licism. And,  indeed,  the  charm  was  broken, — 
the  charm  of  the  outpourings  of  the  heart, 
responding  to  the  supreme  gift,  of  the 
prodigalities  for  worship  which,  to  go  to  the 
root  of  the  matter,  created  beauty.  Luther 
did  not  wish  to  attack  mysteries.  He  even 
boasted  that  he  was  digging  deeper  into  the 
mystery  of  evil.  But  in  doing  so,  he  was 
inflicting  cruel  wounds  upon  the  mystery  of 
goodness. 

Now  if  reason,  which  is  so  frequently  re- 
bellious in  presence  of  the  mysterious,  hesi- 
tates, even  when  it  is  in  revolt,  before  reject- 
ing a  mystery  of  goodness,  because  there  it 
catches  a  glimpse  of  the  proper  nature  of 
God,  it  is  absolutely  averse  to  admitting  a 
mystery  of  evil  which  would  involve  wicked- 
ness in  God.  Predestination  to  damnation  as 
well  as  to  happiness ;  settled  designs  of  God 
to  leave  man  in  sin,  and  even  to  draw  him 
into  it  in  order  to  damn  him  more  surely, — 
such  dogmas  can  hardly  be  reconciled  with 
that  personal  confidence  which  each  must  have 
in  regard  to  his  own  salvation.     Those  who 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt      133 

came  under  Luther's  influence  were  bound 
eventually  to  reject  such  Lutheran  mysteries; 
that  influence  was  destined  to  lead  men  not 
only  to  deny  the  gift  of  God  but  everything 
supernatural. 

It  must  be  said,  however,  that  Luther  and 
his  followers  appealed  to  moral  energy  to  fight 
against  evil.  This  appeal  supposes,  indeed, 
that  we  can  do  something.  Human  nature, 
corrupt,  deprived  of  free  will,  would  have 
had  only  to  let  God  act.  Protestantism  and 
Lutheranism  itself  have  rejected  this  too 
logical  conclusion.  They  have  often  given 
the  spectacle  of  fine  moral  virtues.  And  the 
more  attraction  for  the  supernatural  de- 
creased in  their  communities,  the  more  they 
gave  themselves  up  to  this  noble  aim.  But 
who  does  not  see  that  in  so  doing  they  were 
not  acting  in  accordance  with  the  pessimistic 
mysticism  of  Luther,  his  pretended  champion- 
ing of  the  rights  of  God? 

How  unfathomable  are  the  designs  of  God ! 
or,  to  speak  in  a  more  modem  way,  what  a 
strange  reversal  of  values  ! 

In  1515,  after  half  a  century  of  official 
renaissance  of  the  literature  and  art  of  the 
ancients,  more  than  one  group  of  Christians 
in  Catholic  countries  were  slowly  drifting 
into  naturalism.  Luther,  in  his  cell,  was  above 
all  struck  by  the  extravagances  of  luxury,  the 
relaxation  of  manners,  the  torpor  of  the 
clergy.     High  standards  of  clerical  life  were 


134      Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Revolt 

not,  it  would  seem,  so  much  endangered  as 
in  the  JNIiddle  Ages,  from  the  tenth  to  the 
twelfth  centur}^  But  the  peril  run  by  the 
intelligence  of  Christians  was  greater.  It  is 
not  the  place  to  speak  of  that  matter  here.  It 
is  well  known  that  even  the  heads  of  the 
Church  themselves  showed  too  much  favor 
towards  the  culture  of  antiquity,  too  much  in- 
dulgence towards  those  w^ho  combined  Chris- 
tian practice  with  scepticism  of  thought. 
Christian  religion  risked  being  deprived  of  its 
supernatural  force.  Luther  arose,  protested, 
undertook  to  restore  to  religion  its  inner  soul. 

His  moral  preaching  was  only  a  means  of 
making  Jesus  to  rule — Jesus  crucified,  once 
more  a  conqueror  of  heathen  sensualism.  He 
appealed  to  faith  and  w  ould  have  nothing  but 
faith. 

According  to  human  prevision.  Christian 
dogma  was  to  be  saved  by  the  Reformation, 
while  Catholic  countries  would  insensibly  fall 
away  towards  the  logical  conclusion  of  the 
naturalism  latent  in  the  Renaissance.  And  it 
was  precisely  the  opposite  that  happened. 

In  Protestant  countries  men  strove  to  at- 
tain those  moral  virtues  towards  which  God 
ever  excites  us  in  order  to  prevent  us  from 
perishing,  and  this  effort  was  directed  by  the 
Bible ;  but  from  variation  to  variation  they 
abandoned,  especially  in  intellectual  environ- 
ments, the  most  important  points  of  the  old 
belief.     Jesus,  too  often,  is  no  longer  an  ob- 


Luther  on  the  Eve  of  Rwolt      135 

ject  of  faith  among  those  wlio  venerate  the 
memory  of  Lutlier.  The  Catholic  Church, 
on  the  other  liand,  successfully  set  to  work 
to  reform  manners  according  to  the  evan- 
gelical ideal  of  supernatural  morals,  and  she 
kept  intact  the  teaching  of  the  Apostles.^ 

1  The  study  on  the  genesis  of  Lutheranism  here 
transhited  was  published  by  Father  Lagrange  in  the 
Revue  BihVique,  1914-16,  in  the  Revue  Pratique 
d'Apolocfctigue,  Jan.  1,  1915,  and  in  his  commentary 
on  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  Saint  Paul,  EpUre  aiix 
Romains,  Paris,  Gabalda,  191G.     [Translator's  note.] 


DATE  DUE 

1 
1 

HIGHSMITH  #45115 

